In his second administration, President Donald Trump has stretched the limits of his executive power. And as a Trump-led government takes aim at universities in an effort to force them to conform to his agenda, the impacts have sent shockwaves through the nation.
But Northeastern’s historians say they’ve seen stories like this play out before.
Simon Rabinovitch, a professor of European, Russian, Jewish and legal history at Northeastern, said that while the moment is unprecedented, the Trump administration’s impact on universities is similar to strategies used by past authoritarian regimes.
“I would say that the attacks on the universities are following a similar playbook when it comes to what the perceived danger is, which is challenging a particular ideology, the free exchange of ideas, the exploration of ideas and a way of knowing and science that might challenge the orthodoxy of the administration and the basic lack of control,” Rabinovitch said.
Northeastern, a university that prides itself on its large international student population, has not been immune from political headwinds; in April, the State Department revoked more than 40 visas of Northeastern students and recent graduates. The Trump administration has issued several executive orders and warnings cracking down on speech deemed antisemitic, and university research funding has been frozen over keywords associated with diversity, equity and inclusion messaging or “woke ideology.” Now, fear has begun to inform international students’ decision to exercise free speech.
While the exact actions of the current administration may very well be unprecedented, Rabinovitch believes history can offer lessons about human nature.
“I think we should always be looking at history,” Rabinovitch said. “But looking at history not necessarily because it provides us with a specific analogy. Rather because it provides us with an understanding of human behavior, of power dynamics, of the development of human society.”
Rabinovitch drew parallels between the de-liberalization of Eastern Europe in the early 2000s and the current moment. The liberalization of universities in the region began in the 1990s but was later reversed in Hungary, Poland and Russia in the 2000s and 2010s, to varying degrees.
“[Academics] literally left the country,” Rabinovitch said. “Some have complied, and I think their integrity has been damaged in the process, and others have got up and left. And I think that that’s what we are facing here.”
A wave of academics have left the U.S. due to concerns that their work or livelihoods will be threatened by the Trump administration. To an authoritarian regime, Rabinovitch explained, academics that practice free thought have always been dangerous.
“Any sort of political system that is a one-party state and has a singular ideology, is threatened by any institution in which it can’t control the narrative, in which it can’t control the ideology, in which it can’t control the exchange of ideas,” Rabinovitch said.
While Rabinovitch doesn’t think that the Trump administration will embrace a one-party system, he worries that the administration’s strategies seem similar to the de-liberalization of Russia.
To Gretchen Heefner, the chair of Northeastern’s History Department, the Red Scare of the 1950s is likely the most relevant historical comparison to today.
During that period, the federal government zeroed in on communist sympathizers in government. Today, the targets are primarily law firms and universities. The goal is to get them to “quiet down,” Heefner said.
“When the federal government is going after you, there’s very little you can do,” Heefner said of the intimidation that occurred during the Red Scare. “And this is part of the problem. This kind of shuts people up really quickly.”
In 1947, President Harry Truman created a loyalty program to investigate the political sympathies, affiliations and memberships of all federal employees. What was considered “subversive,” or against the American interest, included peace protests, union strikes and gay people. The attack on subversive speech or actions led to what is now called the Lavender Scare, the firing of thousands of gay people from government positions.
Abstaining from criticism of the government due to fear of retaliation is an age-old concern that has seeped into American reality yet again. Heefner believes that the administration revoking visas has led to a fear of speaking out and is potentially the first step in infringing on free speech, and offers an “interesting cautionary tale.”
The scare tactics used during the Red Scare, despite very few of the accused actually standing trial, led to a massive retreat by activists. But a striking difference between the Red Scare and today’s government is the scope of the target; the broad targets of the Trump administration are alarming, Heefner said.
“I think today it’s actually more concerning, I think, for those of us paying attention to who is being targeted by retribution and through sort of federal policies or potentially targeted,” Heefner said. “They’re not just targeting certain departments or certain units or certain people. They’re targeting the entire institution.”
Erina Megowan, a visiting lecturer at Northeastern who specializes in Soviet intellectuals and creative elites during World War II, views any open debate as a sign of hope.
At Northeastern, conversations about politics are still flourishing; Northeastern’s faculty senate created an academic free speech committee, and protests are still part of university life. President Joseph E. Aoun has also signed letters condemning the Trump administration’s threat to universities.
“I think the bad thing is when the debate goes away, to be honest,” Megowan said.
Megowan sees an “explosion of opposition” in the country right now, and to her, that is what needs to continue.
