Referring to Senator Joesph McCarthy’s incendiary threats and scare tactics, President Dwight Eisenhower cautioned: “I just won’t get into a pissing contest with that skunk.” Although it would be politically wise to heed this legendary advice, universities today do not have the luxury.

President Trump is running what appears to be an extortion racket by freezing Congressionally approved funding and then setting conditions for restoring it. This is sheer coercion.

Higher education institutions have a stark choice. They can either lose billions in federal resources and enervate university governance or defend academic freedom: the right to pursue knowledge and disseminate it without fear of persecution.

Columbia University and several other knowledge institutions complied with demands to discontinue DEI policies and suspend potentially life-saving research projects because of unrelated allegations of inadequate responses to campus antisemitism.

Meanwhile, Harvard, with its $53 billion endowment and support from the American Council of Education, refused to acquiesce.

True, universities are flawed institutions and need to do more to address antisemitic incidents. But they have their own procedures for correcting such problems without improper government interference.

Bowing to Trump’s executive orders could turn academics into functionaries of the state and jeopardize the autonomy of American universities, recognized by the Supreme Court in cases like Sweezy v. New Hampshire and Grutter v. Bollinger.

This threat is important for all of us.

The American research university produces new ideas and discoveries that benefit society writ large. The college curriculum is a means by which society passes on values from one generation to another, thus preserving the marrow of a civilization. The academy may also be an agent for altering and advancing established ways of life.

The stakes are high. America’s strength does not come only from an accumulation of wealth or political power; it also derives from knowledge and moral rectitude.

What then explains the shakedown of universities?

The real story is about power, not DEI or antisemitism. Trump and his entourage want to squelch independent sources of power. They aim to destabilize institutions that challenge their authority. After all, the intellectual vocation is social criticism, which can enable a society to elevate itself and realize its potential.

Embracing a nostalgic view of the Gilded Age of robber barons, Trump is cutting deals with CEOs at universities. No wonder he is attacking Columbia.

During my eight years as a professor there, I had a front-row seat in a top-down system that pays lip service to shared governance yet maintains tight control over its employees. Now, the Trump administration wants to use this model as a wedge for accelerating presidentialism.

Tellingly, the Trump administration’s March 13, 2025, letter to Columbia’s interim president and trustees asserts the “Primacy of the president in disciplinary matters. Abolish the University Judicial Board (UJB) and centralize all disciplinary processes under the Office of the President.”

A fallacy in this apparent power grab is the belief that presidents run universities. In research for my book “Implausible Dream: Repurposing Higher Education,” I interviewed presidents and asked, What is or was the greatest problem during your tenure? Most of them answered unequivocally: trustees.

A clutch of trustees and wealthy donors, including affluent alumni, along with local political authorities at public universities, typically hold sway. Overall, this alliance abates diversity by pummeling policies that benefit historically disadvantaged groups while abetting putative viewpoint diversity.

Another red herring is that universities tilt to the Left and marginalize the Right. I have not come across reliable evidence that supports this canard. Political parties — the Democrats and Republicans — are often used as proxies for liberal and conservative leanings. But this way of thinking is reductionist. Are there only two categories? The spectrum is much broader and more varied.

Against the odds, resistance is cropping up. Two actions would be most important. One is to launch a general strike. Multisectoral, working people need to refuse their labor until demands are met. Gig workers, mechanics, businesspeople, athletes, musicians, servers at restaurants and more should say no to rising authoritarianism. Second, a national resistance movement comprised of multiple constituent groups must wage a defiance campaign in a peaceful, lawful and orderly way.

Let’s act together and make the Trump regime piss off.

Jim Mittelman, a Boulder resident and Camera columnist, is an educator, activist, and author. His books include “The Globalization Syndrome,” “Hyperconflict,” and “Runaway Capitalism” (due out in late 2025).