The antiwoke academics supporting Trump’s attack on universities like Harvard, Columbia – MSNBC News

Executive Summary

A report by the Manhattan Institute, titled the “Manhattan Statement on higher education,” proposes a fundamental shift in the relationship between the United States government and university institutions. The statement advocates for new federal oversight mechanisms, granting the executive branch the authority to revoke public funding and accreditation based on compliance with a new federal “contract.” This proposal, endorsed by the University of Austin (UATX) and other public figures, raises significant concerns regarding its alignment with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of the “Manhattan Statement”

Core Tenets of the Proposal

The statement, published on July 15, outlines a series of grievances against American universities and calls for direct presidential intervention. The core recommendations include:

1. The drafting of a new “contract” between the U.S. President and universities.
2. The integration of this contract’s terms into all federal grants, payments, loans, and accreditation eligibility criteria.
3. The establishment of punitive measures, including the revocation of all public benefits, for non-compliance, to be determined by the executive branch.

The proposal is supported by signatories including conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. It is presented as a solution to perceived ideological issues on campuses, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Institutional Endorsement and Context

The University of Austin (UATX), a private university founded in 2021, has formally endorsed the statement. UATX President Carlos Carvalho stated that the proposal “points the way” to rectifying perceived failings in higher education. Several individuals affiliated with UATX are also signatories to the statement. This endorsement is notable given UATX’s stated mission to champion “civil discourse and intellectual risk-taking” free from “censorship or retribution.”

Assessment of Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The proposed measures present a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

• Institutional Autonomy: The call for executive control over funding and accreditation could compromise the institutional autonomy necessary for universities to provide high-quality, independent education and research. This conflicts with the goal of fostering robust educational environments.
• Inclusive Education (Target 4.7): By targeting DEI initiatives, the proposal may undermine efforts to create inclusive learning environments that promote human rights, gender equality, and a culture of peace and non-violence, all of which are central to Target 4.7.
• International Cooperation (Target 4.b): Previous administrative actions, such as attempts to restrict international student admissions at Harvard based on subjective criteria like “hostility to American values,” run counter to Target 4.b, which advocates for expanding higher education opportunities and scholarships, including for students from developing nations. Such restrictions hinder global academic partnerships.
• Research and Innovation: The threat of cutting billions in scientific research funding directly impacts the capacity for innovation required to address global challenges, undermining the role of universities as engines for sustainable development.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The framework proposed in the Manhattan Statement raises concerns regarding SDG 16, which focuses on building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• Accountable Institutions (Target 16.6): The proposal advocates for unilateral presidential discretion in penalizing universities, lacking a clear mechanism for adjudication, review, or due process. This approach is inconsistent with the development of accountable and transparent institutions. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has noted that federal law requires notice and a hearing before funding termination, a safeguard the statement appears to bypass.
• Rule of Law (Target 16.3): The use of federal funding as a coercive tool to enforce specific speech codes or administrative policies, as seen in the case of Columbia University, challenges the principles of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms.
• Fundamental Freedoms (Target 16.10): The potential for government to police permissible speech and instruction on campuses represents a significant threat to academic freedom, a fundamental freedom essential for the functioning of democratic societies and strong institutions.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The statement’s critique of DEI initiatives directly intersects with the objectives of SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries.

• Empowering Social Inclusion (Target 10.2): DEI programs are institutional mechanisms designed to promote the social and economic inclusion of all, irrespective of origin, race, or other status. The campaign against these programs could reverse progress toward achieving this target within the higher education sector.
• Policies for Equality: The statement’s promotion of “color-blind equality” is positioned against policies designed to address historical and systemic disadvantages, potentially hindering the adoption of fiscal and social policies that progressively achieve greater equality.

Concluding Observations

The endorsement of the Manhattan Statement by UATX creates a contradiction between the university’s stated commitment to academic freedom and its support for a policy framework that could enable extensive government control over higher education. The proposed measures, if implemented, could significantly impact the sector’s ability to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals by weakening institutional autonomy, threatening inclusive educational practices, and undermining the principles of justice and accountability that are foundational to strong, sustainable societies.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The article’s central theme is the state of higher education in the United States. It discusses issues of curriculum content (“truth-seeking with ideological activism”), academic freedom, institutional autonomy, funding for universities, and equal access to education, all of which are core components of SDG 4. The conflict over what universities should teach and how they should be governed is a direct challenge to ensuring quality education.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is highly relevant as the article details a struggle over the governance and integrity of higher education institutions. It highlights calls for undermining established processes (“unilateral power to renegotiate the terms of the compact with the universities”) in favor of personal discretion. The discussion covers fundamental freedoms (free speech, censorship), the rule of law (due process for universities like “notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance”), and the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions.”
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article touches upon inequality and discrimination. The debate over “Diversity, Equity and Inclusiveness (DEI) initiatives” and “color-blind equality” relates directly to policies aimed at reducing inequality within institutions. Furthermore, the specific policy directive for Harvard to “refuse admission to international students who are ‘hostile to American values’” is an example of a discriminatory practice that creates inequality of opportunity based on origin and political opinion.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article discusses threats to this access, such as the Trump administration’s policy of “halting enrollment for international students” and using funding as a weapon, which can affect the quality and accessibility of university education.
   • Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity. The debate over university curricula, including the promotion of “civil discourse” versus “ideological activism,” and the controversy surrounding DEI initiatives, directly relates to the type of knowledge and values being imparted to students.
   • Target 4.b: By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education. The administration’s order for Harvard to “refuse admission to international students” based on subjective criteria runs contrary to the principle of expanding educational opportunities for international students.

2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article highlights a conflict over this target. The Manhattan Statement calls for “administrative transparency,” yet its proposal for unilateral presidential control without “adjudication or review” is described by critics like FIRE as a “hostile federal takeover” that undermines the development of accountable and independent institutions.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. This is a central theme. The article discusses threats to “free speech,” “academic freedom,” and “protected speech,” citing the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s (FIRE) condemnation of the administration for creating a “restrictive speech code that punishes disfavored or dissenting viewpoints.” UATX’s stated value of resisting “censorship or retribution” is also noted.
   • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The debate over DEI initiatives and the administration’s attempt to “police admissions” by demanding Harvard refuse entry to certain international students are directly related to the enforcement of non-discriminatory policies in higher education.

3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article provides a clear example of a proposed discriminatory policy: the Trump administration’s order for Harvard to “refuse admission to international students who are ‘hostile to American values’,” which Harvard noted was in “contravention of the First Amendment.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Federal funding for higher education and research: The article explicitly mentions “massive, unilateral funding cuts” and that “Billions of dollars in scientific research funding have been cut.” The level of public financial support for universities is a direct indicator.
• Policies on international student enrollment: The directive to “refuse admission to international students” and the previous action of “halting enrollment for international students” serve as indicators of a country’s openness to global academic exchange, relevant to Target 4.b.
• Existence of institutional due process: The article mentions that institutions must “receive notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding.” The presence or absence of these mechanisms is an indicator of institutional justice and strength (Target 16.6).
• Reported incidents of suppression of free speech: The article gives examples of students being arrested for what is described as “protected speech,” such as “pro-Palestine protests or op-eds.” The number of such arrests or disciplinary actions for speech is a direct indicator of the state of fundamental freedoms (Target 16.10).
• Existence of discriminatory admissions policies: The demand that Harvard police admissions based on a student’s perceived “values” is a clear indicator of discriminatory practices that can be monitored (Target 10.3).
• Prevalence of university policies on DEI and free speech: The article references the conflict over “DEI bureaucrats” and UATX’s own homepage statement that “students, faculty, and scholars have the right to pursue their academic interests and deliberate freely.” The content and implementation of such university policies are measurable indicators.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: yahoo.com