51³Ô¹Ï

The United States is entering a ¡°neo-academic Cold War¡± in which universities and science are being weaponised for political ends, according to a leading higher education researcher.

John Aubrey Douglass, senior research fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, has warned that the Trump administration¡¯s ¡°unprecedented assault¡± on higher education is part of an attempt to gain more power both nationally and internationally.

Speaking on a webinar convened by the Centre for 51³Ô¹Ï Higher Education, the author of Neo-Nationalism and Universities pointed to vice-president J.D. Vance¡¯s declaration that ¡°universities are the enemy¡± as emblematic of a wider campaign.

Vance told supporters: ¡°If any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.¡±

Douglass said Donald Trump himself has repeatedly used similar language, claiming that universities are dominated by ¡°Marxist maniacs and lunatics.¡±

According to Douglass, this rhetoric is not merely symbolic.

¡°Attacking Harvard...generates headlines, distracts from scandals and allows the administration to test the limits of federal power,¡± he said.

Douglass situated the Trump administration¡¯s policies within a global trend he called a ¡°neo-academic Cold War¡±.

Unlike the US-Soviet rivalry of the 20th century, today¡¯s conflict is multipolar, with shifting alliances between the US, Europe, China, Russia, India, Brazil and others.

The politicisation of higher education and research funding is a key indicator of this trend, as well as declining US-China co-authorship and restrictions on data exchange.

¡°The losers will be open science, science diplomacy and world health,¡± he said.

¡°Instead of optimism about globalisation, we see silos or axes forming. The danger is that higher education and science become weapons in geopolitical rivalries rather than forces for cooperation.¡±

Among the Trump administration¡¯s measures have been threats to impound billions from leading universities.

Harvard University has faced demands for $2.7 billion (?2.2 billion), while the University of California, Los Angeles has been targeted with a $1.2 billion (?1.0 billion) penalty. Columbia reached a settlement for $200 million (?160 million).

In each case, institutions are forced to weigh whether to fight in the courts or strike deals that involve accepting federal monitors and political oversight of admissions and academic programmes.

The scale of proposed cuts to research is even greater.

According to Douglass, the administration has floated a 36 per cent reduction in overall federal R&D funding, including a 40 per cent cut to the National Institutes of Health and a 50 per cent cut to the National Science Foundation.

¡°This would be absolutely devastating,¡± he said.

He also highlighted a controversial proposal to insert political appointees into the peer review process, undermining the system of independent expert assessment that has underpinned US science since the mid-20th century.

¡°That is an Orb¨¢n-like autocratic structure imposed on science,¡± Douglass said.

tash.mosheim@timeshighereducation.com