Editorial on Academic Freedom
Response to Trump's Immigration Policies, Academic Freedom, and Individual Liberties
Why are the Democrats up and arms about Trump's suit color at the Pope's funeral, when a 2 year old American Citizen was just deported to Honduras according to the New York Times, under the notion that the child’s mother '“agreed” after being presenting no other alternative (which there absolutely was); additionally a child undergoing cancer treatment was deported as well under similar circumstances. Deporting them does not make you morally righteous or superior, I don't care if their parents are gang members or illegal immigrants, they were children and no one, especially a child, undergoing life saving treatment should fear deportation. The United States has better accessibility to cancer treatments than many Central American countries, and for some much cleaner and safer living conditions. If they are sent back, there is no guarantee they will get the treatment they need or even that they will have a home, and this child can literally die because of the United States ICE is heartless and that child among countless other’s blood will forever be on our country's hands.
Caroline Levitt, White House Press Secretary, said that it was the mothers’ choice to take the child with them. The United States also has a duty to protect its citizens, and ensure due process to those living here, and I am not convinced Levitt understands this concept that should not be difficult to grasp. It is the basic premise of any nation to protect its people. The Founding Fathers added to this premise the right to “Due Process” under the law, REGARDLESS of immigration status. If a child is undergoing medical treatment, the U.S. State Department has the power to issue a temporary visa for the parent overseeing their child’s (that is a citizen) medical treatment, to be available to make life changing medical decisions among other things. The visa does not have to be permanent, and if nothing else they deserve a hearing to advocate to be with their children. It is appalling to me the party of “traditional family values” wants to risk a family’s devastating potential lose of a child because they may no longer have access to the necessary quality medical care they had prior to deportation. The U.S. government has the authority to stop this, but refused to. They refuse to entertain any other option from detainment and deportation.
These policies go beyond people crossing the boarder “illegally”; they are discriminatory. The amount of people who have been detained despite holding “lawful status” in the United States, be it a green card or awaiting an immigration hearing, is alarming. At what point do United States’ citizens that happen to fit ICE’s description of a Venezuelan gang member start getting sent to foreign prison camps like the one in El Salvador, without due process. I don’t want to hear that this is a hypothetical, I am aware that it is. Nor do I want to hear that it is the “slippery slope fallacy.”” The slippery slope fallacy” has its place in an argument when used with precedent and reasonable evaluation. It is the fact of the matter that this can, will, and probably has happened already and we just don’t know about it. This administration is pushing boundaries that have not been pushed in this country; boundaries that infamous authoritarian leaders also pushed, and spoiler alert: it did not end well for them.
I do not make comparisons to Nazi Germany lightly. In fact, I tend to avoid them or at least make a distinction between the two (identifying key differences, lines that presumably will not be crossed, etc.). However, I find it difficult right now not to compare the current American regime and that of 1930s Germany. I just finished an 83 paged Master’s Thesis exploring Austria’s reconciliation with the Holocaust from 1945-2022. I have spent the last two years researching Nazism, fascism, and far-right populism. When I say that historians and academics are not being over dramatic when they say they are terrified about the state the world today, I am not saying so lightly. Honestly, I do not think academics and historians are making enough fuss about the matter.
Although it might make sense why some academics are being quiet right now. The recent Trump Administration demands on U.S. Universities silencing academic freedom and limiting the constitutional rights to free speech make opposing the regime a bit complicated. Especially when you consider that when Hitler took power in 1933, he wasted no time in dispatching academics he disagreed with. To work your whole life just to lose your career because you spoke the truth and called out an oppressive regime is disheartening and terrifying. A lot of painstaking hours go into research, and when academics are making these big, bold, alarming claims, they are not doing so lightly. Many are putting their academic careers on the line.
Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the demands and withholding funds sets a precedent. To stand up to an oppressive regime takes a lot guts and a strong backing. Columbia bent over for the Trump Administration without much push back by the University, despite student apprehension. Harvard refused to sacrifice academic freedom for funds. You cannot put a price on academic freedom because it is necessary for the growth of our nation and protection of its people. Without academics and researchers putting their questions to the test, we will never advance (within reason and abiding by the Nuremberg Code and ethics in general). The medical research that Harvard conducts is vital for the health of our people and could save countless lives, and all that research is now put on hold, delaying potentially life-saving care for thousands of Americans, all because an administration did not like the concept of academic freedom.
Academic freedom is a complicated term, and it has many interpretation, some even problematic. To what extent do we allow academic freedom is a valuable question often asked. The Nuremberg Code helped establish research ethics and this notion of informed consent. It also provided limitations on experimentation for the sanctity of human life and well-being. When you read Mengele’s medical experiments at Auschwitz, you will forever be scarred at the shear lack of empathy for human life, and Mengele’s willingness to disregard the lives of the Jewish concentration camp inmates. They were merely test subjects, nameless and devoid of humanity in Mengele’s eyes, a lesser species if you will. This sort of view is dangerous, but to say inhumane is disrespectful to other species in the Aminal kingdom. Very few creatures engage in the level of violence in which mankind does. Something Holocaust refugee and historian Yehuda Bauser puts it beautifully in his book Rethinking the Holocaust, explaining that what the Nazis did cannot be described as beastly because it is all too human. Human committed the genocidal acts, acts animals do not engage in. The Holocaust was a humanly act, and to say otherwise denies the terrible fact of human’s sick fascination with violences and readiness to engage in such acts. Animals kill on necessity, human kill for, I guess you could argue, sport. We do not kill other humans because we need food to eat, but because of subjectively percieved threats (threats could be avoided in many cases by having open minded conversations) and greed.
In the humanities sector, the question to what extent is this rhetoric harmful and perpetuating mythic and harmful stereotypes about a group of people that has medically been disproved. For this I will use an Austrian example from the 1960s, a lesser known scandal. Professor Taras von Borodajkewycz was a former Nazi party member who was “rehabilitated” into Austrian society and taught economic history at the University of World Trade in Vienna. Borodajkewycz, however, continued to use similar anti-semitic rhetoric in his lectures as he did prior and during the National Socialist regime. For example, when brought to court, Borodajkewycz defended his use of anti-semitic rhetoric by saying that one cannot study Karl Marx without acknowledging his Jewishness (which is false in the method that Borodajkewycz meant it, Marx criticized Jews). When a student of his notes were shared with an official in the Austrian government and then subsequently published in a leftist editorial, outrage ensued. Members of the Conservative Austrian People’s Party were outraged over the attacks on academic freedom. The liberal Socialist Party of Austria and far-left Communist Party of Austria responded arguing the stereotypes of the rhetoric and how it was disproved. They also brought to light (only for a moment) the lack of accountability of Austria had and their failed denazification efforts. The question in this debate is whether or not academic freedom includes outdated information and prejudices. Where is the line, if one even exists at all, that separates a different perspective from flat out racism and anti-semitism? Historians today do a rather good job at acknowledging a line and not crossing it, understanding the consequences of the perpetuation of those stereotypes and eugenic, ethnic cleansing, and genocidal violence that can result from them.
Hundreds of thousands of arguments can be made about the Founding Fathers and their opinions on people of color and indigenous populations, but I am not going to focus on that, because that is another issue to discuss and adjacent to immigration. Without a doubt, the United States would not exist without immigrants. Immigrants under Washington’s administration were absolutely given the same rights as citizens. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments, and the then the Fourteenth amendments have not changed since 1791 and 1868 for the Fourteenth. In case you need a refresher:
Fourth Amendment: no search or seizure without a warrant (or probably cause/reasonable suspicion)
Fifth Amendment: right to due process; right to remain silent; no double-jeopardy
Sixth Amendment: right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed; requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them (cannot be held beyond 72 hours wihtout being charged with a crime); right ot cross-examine and call witnesses; right to an attorney or public defender
Seventh Amendment: right to a jury trial in certain civil cases and inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact
Eighth Amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment; no excessive bail
Fourteenth Amendment: requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people, including non-citizens, within its jurisdiction; prohibits all levels of government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without substantive and procedural due process (extending it to freed slaves); establishes American citizenship (overturning the decision of the Dred Scott Case)
Every single deportation that happened without due process is unconstitutional and officials need to be held accountable for their lack of respect towards the constitution. Violating the rights of non-citizens might seem like a distant issue towards U.S. citizens, but it can very easily and quickly become your issue. Hitler did not start outright with its own citizens. He slowly degraded the status if Jews between 1933 and 1939. He did not strip them of status over night, it was a process, enough so that it would seem foreign or distant, and only a small step in the wrong distance that theoretically could be easily correct. Once hte public forgot about the step, the regime would take another, cautiously ensuring that it walked the fine line between comfort and discomfort amongst differing population. The famous quote by Martin Niemöller (1892–1984):
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
In 1933, there were Jews that voted for the Nazi party and like Hitler, so when he came forthe socialists and trade unionist, they cheered, not entertaining the idea that they very well could be next. This idea that we are immune to such violence is naive and ignorant because no one is immune from fascism. It is not he Black Death where those with the right genetic mutations are immune and survive. It is a disease like not other, festering the cesspools of narcissism and ignorance. Something every authoritarian shares if their adoration for themselves and their power. Once one tastes the sweet nector of power, it becomes quite difficult to stop drinking from the grail. And they offer a watered down version of this nector to the people, enough for their loyalty, and enough to make the individuals in the masses feel special, above their peers, creating a social heirarchy with a very exclusive point, and the bottom is lsowly removed from society.
To deny that American nativism that has captured the Trump’s administrations policy making is not an establishment of this heirarchy is false. The process of othering groups and blaming them from issues that are not of their making is how it starts. It is how it always starts. The exclusion from the friend group in High School, they blame you for petty nonsense, and then suddenly they are making plans behind your back. The U.S. gave lawful status to individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Mahmoud Khalil, and Rumeysa Ozturk only to revoke their status without due process. The justifications behind this being that they are apart of terrorist or gang organizations without substantial proof deepens this othering. The masses that support the Trump Administration are praising his efforts taking his claims at face value, percieving their prescence as a threat to themselves (which they do not pose such a threat). This is how it starts. The slow gradation of civil liberties is one of hte early steps towards fascism. And no country, no nation, no group is immune to this plague, nor will there ever be immunity.
From K-12, every morning at the start of the morning announcements we would end the “Pledge of Alleigance” with the words, “with liberty and jsutice for all.” I meant “justice for all.” Call me naive, but I thought that was what we fight for in this country, “justice for all,” not “justice for a few select people.” The founding principle of this nation was from John Locke’s doctrine of the inaleiable rights of man “for life, liberty, and hte pursuit of happiness.” It is inscirbed in the Declaration of Independence, the divorce papers of our country’s seperation from the abusive constitutional monarchy of England in 1776. The slogan “Give me liberty, or give me death,” lives in infamy. Now we are willing to throw away the liberties of others ot retain our privlege? Now I understand that the founding fathers did not care about women’s rights or indigenous rights, or people of color, but premise of liberty still stands and the extention of who is a person under the constitution (which is everyone) has taken place over time. It took activists who cared an awful lot about equality and equity to fight for the expansion of this definition, and be unrelenting.
I love my country, always have, and always will. I am a patriot, through and through. I stand up for human rights because it is the basic notion this nation was founded on. To fight for anyrhing that limits such definitions dow not make you a patriot; it makes you an oppressor, a fascist, a nativist, a segregationist, an imperialist, a colonizer, something far from a patriot. When we confuse patriotism with nationalism is when we are in trouble. Nationalists do not critque the nation, they worship it.
To be critical of your country is to love your country. To want to contiue developing ways to make your country safer for everyone is to love your country. To critisize policies that limit the rights to civil liberties and consitutional rights is to love your country. To fight for democracy is to be a patriot. To respect everyone and their right to exist should not be controversial, it should be the norm. It's a basic moral principle, the foundation of almost every single religion in existence., and of this country Everyone is entitled to due process. Everyone is guaranteed the right to free speech, expression, to assemble. Everyone has the right to protest the government.
I will fight for civil rights until I am six feet under because I have a duty to my country, as does every American, citizen or immigrant, rich or poor. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
To oppress one group is to oppress everyone. To take away rights from one group takes away the guarentee of those rights across the board. Denying the right to due process to undocumented immigrants opens the door to denying the right to due process for American cicitzens. This premise is a basic premise. It is not difficult to grasp.
Rights are not a single pie, you are not getting less pie. Expanding civil rights is baking another pie to include others so each group gets an equitable number of pies. Please notice how I used hte word equitable and not equally. Equatiable means essentially to even the playing field, giving those historically disadvantaged and underprivleged a chance to level up to those who are privleged. It do not mean one group did not work hard enough, it means that there are societal factors out of the individual’s control that made it more difficult for them to level up. It does not deny the struggles that the privelged went through, nor does it not imply the underprivelged did not work hard. Giving a pell grant to a finacially disadvantaged student is an example of equity in our country. Rights are not a pie, giving someone else rights or liberties, does not mean less for you. It is using the ingridients to make more pies.
With that, I would like to circle back to problems that are not a groups fault, but are the ones being blamed for it. Immigrants are not taking our jobs, nor are overseas countries taking our jobs.
Immigrants generally do jobs that you don't want to do for piss poor wages. Soon those jobs are going to go out of the country because the grape farms, orange farms etc. don't have workers to work the fields. Less workers=less product=less profits
Companies went overseas because they could get away with paying their workers even more piss poor wages, meaning more profits for them. Regardless those industries will not return to the U.S., but we can create new industries, new infrastructure, to create new jobs. Focus on growing more crops in the US, build agriculture back up. Renewable energy plants. Public transportation. Public transportation is a great way to bring in city revenue and create hundreds of jobs. The options are genuinely endless, it is just congress is lobbied by the big corporations that God forbid their stock drop even .1% and they will not be able to buy a new yacht next summer. They do not have your best interests in mind, they only care about the number in their bank account.
The wealth gap in the US should be alarming. Elon Musk never has to worry about how he is going to afford his next meal, meanwhile poor Gen Z and Millennials like myself are surviving on bread crumbs and living paycheck to paycheck. More wealth is held by the top 10% than all of the lower 90%. THIS SHOULD BE ALARMING. But sure let's tariffs our allies instead of taxing billionaires 5% more which to them is probably not going to change their lifestyle, whereas a 1% increase in taxes on the working and middle classes is detrimental.
Academic freedom is crucial because regardles of the field it keeps that 1% in check, or attempts to. It attempts to educate the detrimental consequences of policies that the Trump Adminstration is implementing. Acdemic frreedom allowed us ot look into the Nazi Regime and question “how did this happen?” and “how can we prevent such a thing from happening again?” My career is politics, I have never not been invested in politics and foreign policy, and Former President John F. Kennedy once said "ask not what your country could do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It takes the collective to uphold and protect the constitution, not just our elected officials. That's what you can do for your country. Fight for justice for all, not a select few, all.
But sure, let's complain about the color of Trump's suit at the Pope's funeral, and not the hundreds of life changing issues in this country.
References:
Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust
Martin Luther King Jr., “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
Martin Niemöller, “First they came for…”
John Locke, Two Treatise of Government, 1690
Contempory History Museum of Austria, https://hdgoe.at/Borodajkewycz-Skandal
New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/us/abrego-garcia-mistakenly-deported.html
BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g8yj2n33yo
Mint, youtube,