Do Not Obey In Advance

At the end of May, President Trump addressed graduates at West Point as if he had something in common with them.

After four years of hard work, they sat patiently in the warm sunshine, disciplined and in dress uniform, listening to a man in a gaudy red hat, talk about himself, and in the process presenting an ugly contrast to the dedication to public service embodied in the graduating cadets. As they leave the academy, they are pledging to give some of the most important years of their lives to defend a country the president seems dedicated to destroying.

Several hours away, in a small Connecticut town, aptly named Middletown, another group of students was being urged to take up a role as defenders against an administration that appears to be at war with the pursuit of knowledge.

Nowhere is this assault on academia more evident than the administration’s chosen battle against Harvard University. Out of all the problems in the world, Trump has decided to use precious presidential time and energy to effectively cripple Harvard by; withdrawing federal grant money, demanding Harvard end any practice to promote diversity, equity or inclusion, withdrawing the school’s authorization to accept foreign students, and by threatening to revoke the university’s tax exempt status.

Any one of these sanctions would have a serious effect on Harvard’s ability to operate as one of the nation’s top universities. Taken together they are part of an obvious campaign to destroy the school and all it stands for in the mind of Trump; the ultimate symbol of an elite world he believes he has never been allowed to enter. In this fight, Trump sees himself as a stand-in for the millions of Americans who similarly have never gotten an invitation to Harvard, or anywhere like it. Trump has suggested all the federal money he wants to take away from Harvard should go to fund “trade”schools. Blue collar vs. white collar.

As Americans, we know we can do both, but with Trump there always needs to be an us vs. them. There need to be winners and losers. He cannot imagine a world where working together can produce a win for everyone.

I hesitate to give any credit to President Trump for devising a strategy that goes beyond what he sees as in his best political interest in the moment. His strategy is limited to what he thinks will divide the nation most effectively so that if it came down to raw numbers 51% of voters would be on his side. When critics say he is following the “authoritarian playbook” by attacking centers of learning as a means to deny knowledge to the masses so that he can take advantage of an uninformed electorate, that’s too complicated an analysis. Trump mines the resentments of now. He has no interest in, or patience, or vision for the long term strategy required to achieve authoritarianism.

That may not be the case for some of the people Trump has appointed to his administration. From his Homeland Security secretary who thinks habeas corpus gives the president the right to deport people without due process, to the secretary of state who thinks free speech by foreign born students is a “ruckus” that threatens U.S. foreign policy, to the deputy White House chief of staff who blithely lies about the meaning of a Supreme Court decision while addressing an international audience from the Oval Office; those who inhabit the interior world of Trump see the usefulness of low information voters and would like to play a part in expanding that base. This is the administration that plans to abolish the Department of Education, in part by embracing what the secretary of education calls “A1.”(You may know it as AI or artificial intelligence).

Harvard is fighting back, as it should. It is setting an example as it is well positioned to do. Harvard has sued the administration claiming the president has unfairly targeted the school without due process and is threatening the school’s free speech rights and independence. Most legal observers believe Harvard has a very strong case and the administration has a very weak one, but even if Harvard prevails in court it still faces three and a half years of warfare with the administration. Unless of course Trump loses interest — which is always a possibility given his personality.

Earlier this year, Columbia University took a different approach and agreed to a series of reforms the administration demanded related to DEI, hiring, and academics. In return, the administration backed off threats to pull federal funding from Columbia. Many in the academic world were aghast by the capitulation, but understood the choice while publicly acknowledging their relief at not having been forced, as of yet, to make a similar decision.

There are many fights to pick and many fights you are thrust into as president. Why Trump has chosen this fight with American colleges and universities is unclear. It is probably the case that he would not have chosen this battle if it had been left up to him alone, but like the deal he made with conservatives over nominations to the Supreme Court, it is likely a similar deal has been made with a subset of his base to re-shape academia. Trump has what he wants; the Oval Office. In exchange he has offered a part of his base the power to use the executive branch to bring its culture war to college campuses. On campus is where they hope to bend American culture in a more conservative direction.

Whatever the motivation of Trump and his supporters, the clash pits the use of brute force against the use of thoughtful action. In the long history of humanity, it has often been the case that brute force can win in ways that shape the terms of the debate, but thoughtful action prevails over the course of time.

This is no time to be a spectator. The direction of the United States is being decided in our time based on where and when we choose to engage or disengage on the issues. It’s a bad strategy to wait until the fight comes to you. Instead of obeying in advance, it is better to prepare and resist in advance.

Which brings me back to Middletown, Connecticut and Wesleyan University where academic rigor in liberal arts and the sciences has produced well-rounded leaders — in a variety of fields — since 1831. Its current president, Michael Roth, who graduated from the school in 1978, quickly made his way to the front lines of resistance to the Trump administration’s authoritarian tendencies shortly after Inauguration Day. Even though his university has not been specifically targeted, he understands the threat and has been using his position to stand up for the fundamental freedoms most Americans have always assumed to be safe. He has published important essays in widely read publications and has appeared often on television news programs to sound the alarm.

Roth’s choice to speak out and put himself and his university at some risk, is important. Harvard has the resources to resist the administration’s questionable use of executive action. A school like Wesleyan has fewer resources. It takes some courage to volunteer for service at the front line when it would be easier to watch from the side line.

In the current threat environment, it is important for institutions that might find themselves targeted by the administration to signal early and publicly where they stand. By making clear that Wesleyan is on the side of education and free expression, Roth has made it less likely Trump will choose his school as his next victim. Trump is never looking for a fair fight. He is looking for targets that submit quickly and give him the winning headlines he is truly after.

“If we don’t defend education and protect Democracy, we will lose both as vital parts of our American heritage,” Roth told his graduates during commencement exercises in May. Roth has not reacted to the backlash against diversity on college campuses by retreating. He has instead reframed the argument to explain to DEI opponents that a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, necessarily includes them. That is what the “I” represents.

As Americans, we should not fear difficult conversations. Open dialogue in the service of hard choices, is an essential part of successful democracy. In any discussion that includes diverse viewpoints, “views that might disturb us will get a hearing,” Roth said. It is important for each of us to “learn from one another with courage and resilience.”

In the world of conservative American politics, DEI has become a code term for reverse discrimination. Like the term affirmative action, for some, the letters DEI are a signal that they will be forced to give up something they believe they have earned so that someone who is not worthy — in their view — can benefit at their expense.

Roth is setting an important example. He is not the most famous college president. He is not the most powerful. He does not have the biggest megaphone to match the bully pulpit of the White House. But that is the point. His courage is a sign to others that it is safe to stand up for what you believe in. It’s not only safe, it is essential, because the Trump administration’s strategy for success is to overwhelm us in a way that makes it difficult to fight back. But fighting back is the only rational choice. Fighting in advance is more effective than obeying in advance.

A few years ago I attended a pro-Trump rally in my home state. What I saw and heard was decidedly un-American when measured against the values we are supposed to share. One man’s t-shirt stood out to me. It read, “My rights don’t end where your feelings begin.” This is how many who identify as conservatives see the state of affairs in the United States. Work to embrace and expand the diversity of the country is seen as a threat to their way of life. The t-shirt can be read two ways. It also means that if you are not like me, “your rights end where my feelings begin.”

This exclusionary worldview is in direct contradiction to the principles behind the founding of the country. On graduation day, Roth told graduates, “authoritarianism…challenges not only expertise, but even the value of freedom, freedom of inquiry and expression — both of which are deeply tied to diversity, inclusion, and equity.” Freedom of expression “requires a diversity of viewpoints to be meaningful.”

Freedom of expression in a democracy raises the quality of the debate and therefore the quality of the policies that follow from that debate.

While Trump was using his speech at West Point to promote himself, Roth and the other speakers at Wesleyan were using their one last chance to teach the next generation of leaders before they left campus to begin their work in the world.

The author Percival Everett received an honorary degree from Wesleyan this year and delivered hopeful remarks with a weighty charge to graduates. “You may be the last line of defense — of and for — American intellectual life.” In other words, it is up to you to meet the challenge the Trump administration presents. There is no one coming to do this for you. The responsibility in yours. It is ours.

It is up to all of us to build a wall to protect the United States from a movement dedicated to turning the country into something it was never meant to be. The opposite of what it was meant to be. The strength of that wall depends on education, understanding, freedom of expression, diversity, and inclusion as opposed to exclusion and segregation.

D.Pagani
June 2025