Under the slogan “Stand up for science,” marches were organized on March 7 to defend science as a pillar of democracy. These demonstrations were aimed at protesting the budget cuts and massive layoffs in American organizations and universities decided by the new Trump administration. No institution, even the most prestigious, seems to have been spared from this wave of repression. But academic institutions are not simply innocent victims. They bear a large part of the responsibility for the crisis of legitimacy they are experiencing, having long since forgotten the ideal of truth in order to serve ideological causes.
“We are not in decline because the barbarians are invading us. The barbarians are invading us because we are declining.” — Arnold Toynbee.
Nothing illustrates the drift of the university, especially the Anglo-Saxon university, better than this recent advertisement for a professor of political science at the University of Manchester: “The successful candidate will join the Global Political Economy Group, whose members explore key questions about the dynamics of global capitalism, such as: How does this system depend on and reproduce inequalities related to race, gender, sexuality, class and geography? What are the causes of its crises? What ideologies sustain it and make resistance to its power so difficult? What forms of resistance are emerging and what social alternatives are being considered? How does capitalism contribute to environmental unsustainability?”
With such a roadmap, the direction of research is clearly biased. The conclusions are predictable, and alternative hypotheses are precluded. How can a “researcher” recruited according to such criteria claim any scientific credibility? Can he really be considered a credible representative of science? What is sought here is not a scientist, but an activist who shares the ideological vision of the recruiters. “Standing up for science”? What a joke. And this job description is entirely representative of the explicit or implicit practices common in Western universities.
Yes, science is under attack, and that’s very serious, but the real problem isn’t that the Trump administration is attacking science. The problem is that it can attack scientific institutions without anyone really feeling motivated to defend them. And if no one wants to defend them, it is because they have lost their legitimacy. For years they have promoted dubious, even frankly sloppy (wokism) non-scientific theories, confused science and politics, and put research at the service of militant causes. At the same time, they have fired researchers who do not share these causes, supported anti-Semitic demonstrations on their campuses, discriminated against job applicants on racial grounds, and appointed people who plagiarized their doctoral dissertations to leadership positions with impunity. “Standing up for science”? Another joke.
Scientists are right to point out that science, whose mission is to seek the truth, is a pillar of democracy. But they must also recognize that many institutions that claim to serve it have betrayed that mission. It is legitimate for society to hold them accountable. They are primarily responsible for the current situation, even if this in no way justifies the disastrous decisions of the Trump administration.
Some universities are beginning to recognize this, more or less voluntarily, and are committing themselves to institutional neutrality, which means no longer taking positions on political issues. This is progress, but it is not enough. It is an entire system, built and fueled in the service of political causes, that must be challenged if universities are to have any chance of regaining their legitimacy. Until that happens – and it will take years – Trump’s attacks will have an impact because they have some justification and will be supported by some of the population.
🇫🇷 A version in French of this article is available here.
One thought on “Defend science? What if universities started by putting their own house in order?”