I was in class this week analyzing works from 19th-century writers when the subject of abolition arose, as it often does in a literature seminar. The question was whether Nathaniel Hawthorne, despite his ornate romantic metaphors, supported the abolition of slavery.
Although he had personal sympathies, my professor noted that Hawthorne mostly “kept his head down.”
It didn’t take much to draw comparisons to Michigan State University today. Amid President Trump’s ongoing attacks on higher education, MSU has adopted what it calls “institutional restraint,” discouraging departments and employees from issuing statements that could be seen as representing the university and risking funding or its mission.
However, the university has asserted that their approach is not to be confused with “institutional neutrality," an increasingly-popular approach among universities across the country. "Neutrality suggests that there is no position the university may have on a particular issue," MSU President Guskiewicz said back in December. "But (restraint) is saying that we may have an opinion, but we’re gonna allow others to express themselves and to not marginalize any particular opinion."
Whatever it’s called, its justification is cracking under pressure all the same.
The university was called into the fray last week when Trump fired MSU professor Lisa Cook from her position as Governor on the Federal Reserve Board over allegations of mortgage fraud. But rather than responding to the call, MSU has remained on a path of self-restraint. Cook is currently on leave from MSU.
The university’s official stance is that the matter doesn’t pertain to them, and the faculty senate took a similar position. Chair Angela Wilson agreed that the matter doesn’t pertain to MSU, and seemed like she could only add that the situation is “highly unfortunate.”
But MSU’s current attitude toward Cook is ringing a much different tune than it was three years ago when she was nominated to the board by former President Biden. Back then, Cook making national headlines as the first Black woman to serve on the Board of Governors was an embodiment of “the excellence of our Spartan faculty,” as former MSU President Samuel Stanley Jr. put it.
MSU wants to have it both ways. They want to be able to claim Cook as their glass ceiling-shattering Spartan without the obligation of defense when she’s pulled into Trump’s rampage. Her removal threatens the university’s mission and, by MSU’s own standard, should qualify as an exception to its restraint policy.
Federal research cuts have also threatened MSU’s mission, resulting in a 9% budget reduction effort. And yet, aside from linking its cause to federal pressure, MSU stopped short of taking a firm stance against Trump. University officials instead most likely fear that any sort of fight against Trump would land this institution directly in his crosshairs, perhaps resulting in more direct attacks.
That fear is not unfounded.
In the last few months, university presidents have been dropping out, the most recent of which being Northwestern’s Michael Schill who stepped down on Thursday after months of battling with the Trump administration, which involved nearly $800 million being cut from university research funds. University of Virginia President James E. Ryan also resigned under similar pressure.
Guskiewicz is the sixth MSU president in as many years, stepping into a university fatigued by the constant presidential turnover. So, in the age of Donald Trump, the question becomes whether or not this university can handle another president taking a step down, especially over some kind of federal controversy.
Other universities like Harvard (who also saw a President step down amid federal pressure) have also been caught up in the battle against Trump and show no sign of backing down even after he sought to freeze billions of dollars in funding.
So beyond whether MSU can afford to leap into the fray, officials should consider a harder question: how will the university look back on this period? Will it say it stood up to Trump’s dismantling of higher education, even at great cost, or that it kept its head down and waited for others to act?
Nathaniel Hawthorne scoffed at the idea that the progressive movements of his time would succeed, and his apathy helped him remain close to power and secure his legacy as one of the era’s most celebrated writers.
But at what cost?
Jack Williams is the Opinion Coordinator at The State News. The views in this article are his own and independent of The State News.
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
