Michael Roth: No Time for Appeasement

A conversation with the president of Wesleyan University

Charlie Sykes

Mar 18, 2025

302

Transcript

Wesleyan University President Michael Roth is doing something that so many other leaders of business, politics, and education seem afraid to do: he’s pushing back against Donald Trump. He has emerged as one of the most forceful and eloquent defenders of liberal education and academic freedom at a time when both are under siege. You can listen/watch right here, or: Watch on YouTube / Listen (and subscribe) on Apple/ Spotify / iHeart / RSS Feed.

This pretty much sums up the state of play:

Happy Tuesday.

Some background reading:

Legal Experts Question Trump’s Authority to Cancel Columbia’s Funding - The New York Times
When President Trump issued an ultimatum to Columbia University — canceling $400 million in funding and demanding an overhaul of its admissions and disciplinary rules — it launched the institution into an extraordinary crisis.
According to legal scholars, it may have also violated the law and the Constitution.
“Never has the government brought such leverage against an institution of higher education,” said Lee C. Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University, who stepped down in 2023 after a 21-year tenure. “The university is in an incredibly unprecedented and dangerous situation. It is an existential threat.”
Politico: Are Universities Surrendering to Trump? This College President Is Worried.
Roth said he has no desire to fight the Trump administration just for the sake of it, but that universities need to remain fierce advocates of students’ right to protest and universities’ independence.
“The infatuation with institutional neutrality,” he said, “is just making cowardice into a policy.”
Michael Roth: What colleges will do under Trump: How presidents of universities can react.
In the past months, since Trump’s victory in the general election, leaders in the worlds of business and education have been rushing to show that they no longer have any political beliefs. Facts? Why check them? Privilege? Who’s to say that the megarich don’t deserve their advantages? Anticipating how best to be obedient, they aim to please those at the vanguard of what Mark Zuckerberg called a “cultural tipping point.”
It’s one thing to be reminded that “elections have consequences,” but quite another to insist that the best response to the abuse of authority is to be restrained, demure, neutral.
Michael Roth: A Turning Point for University Leadership
I’m no fan of the pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University, and they would certainly not be fans of mine. Although I have been outspoken in my opposition to the Trump administration’s march to authoritarianism over the past several weeks, I have also publicly opposed the divestment movement, written about my Judaism and connection to Israel, and urged dialogue rather than puerile sloganeering on campuses.
Student protesters, I’ve made clear, must observe reasonable time and place restrictions—they cannot disrupt the core university functions without accountability.
It should go without saying that these restrictions should be “content-neutral.” The content of your views (unless they veer into harassment and intimidation) should have no bearing on the restrictions you face. This is fundamental to freedom of speech.

Some of the highlights of our conversation:

The debate over institutional “neutrality”.

Attacks on the curriculum.

We’ve taken American freedom for granted.

Meanwhile…

A reminder that this is not a drill. Via Ron Fournier’s splendid Substack newsletter:

“I don’t care what the judges think.” When the final chapter is written on the Trump presidency, no matter how long it lasts and whether American democracy outlasts it, those words from his border czar may live in infamy.
“I don’t care what the judges think.” It is a statement of ultimate and absolute arrogance, the sleazy sentiments of an autocracy, the dismantling of checks and balances, the consolidation of powers in a system designed to separate them.
“I don’t care what the judges think.” Only a man who works for a man who doesn’t care about democracy would utter such a thing. Tom Holman said it. Donald Trump authored it.
Accountability bowed to autocracy Monday when government lawyers, acting as the president’s personal law firm, called for the removal of a judge who blocked the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. They also refused to answer the judge’s questions, something that would put a typical U.S. citizen in contempt of court.

Plus:

Talking Points Memo: Trump’s Cronies Line Up To Help Him Defy The Judiciary
Wall Street Journal: Trump Escalates Push Against Legal Norms
Axios: MAGA media pushes for judicial showdown over Venezuelan deportations
Politico: Trump, already on a collision course with the courts, hits the gas

Via NBC: “Campaign finance complaint filed against Musk-associated group's involvement in Wisconsin Supreme Court race”

A bipartisan coalition alleges that a political group affiliated with Elon Musk violated state campaign finance laws as part of its spending efforts in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, according to a complaint filed today.
The complaint, filed by longtime Wisconsin Republican activist Tracy Mangold with the support of a Democratic strategist-led group that's focused on supporting the party’s legal efforts around election protection, alleges that Building America’s Future violated campaign finance laws in failing to properly disclose various expenditures and disbursements related to the “Progress 2028” campaign….
The complaint is related to a series of digital ads put out by a group identifying itself as Progress 2028 that have tied the liberal candidate in the technically nonpartisan race, Susan Crawford, to a variety of liberal policy ideas. Some ads, for example, call Crawford a “progressive champion,” while others contend she will “stand up for immigrants” and give convicted criminals “second chances.”
The Associated Press and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel have reported that the ads, which appear largely on Facebook and other social media sites, were funded by Building America’s Future, a Musk-aligned group. (Building America’s Future isn’t required to disclose its donations, but Reuters and The Wall Street Journal have reported that Musk helped fund it in the past.) The group is one of two associated with Musk — the other is Musk's America PAC — that have together spent more than $8 million to boost the conservative candidate in the race, Brad Schimel….
“Elon Musk’s PAC has dumped millions into this race in an apparent attempt to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — and now it appears the PAC has broken the law while doing it,” Norm Eisen, a co-founder of State Democracy Defenders Action, the group involved in filing the complaint, said in a statement today.

Third rail update:

Rolling Stone: Social Security ‘Clawback’ Change Could Bankrupt Seniors
Washington Post: Proposal would force thousands to file Social Security claims in person
DOGE plots to cut Social Security phone support, leaked memo indicates - Axios
An internal memo from the Social Security Administration proposes changes to its phone service that could derail the benefits application process for many Americans.
Why it matters: The Trump administration has repeatedly said it doesn't plan changes to Social Security, other than to address fraud and waste — but these proposals risk "crippling" a system already plagued by delays, and facing staffing cuts, former agency officials tell Axios.