Message Forum

Welcome to the Watterson High School Message Forum.

The message forum is an ongoing dialogue between classmates. There are no items, topics, subtopics, etc.

Forums work when people participate - so don't be bashful! Click the "Post Message" button to add your entry to the forum.


 
go to bottom 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page      

03/12/25 10:22 AM #15209    

Mary Clare Hummer (Bauer)

My oldest brother, Ted, actually got polio the summer I turned 6. The health department came to our house on Blenheim Road and put huge QUARANTINED signs on our front door and windows. I remember staring out the windows at all the neighbor kids who would cautiously walk by our house and stare back at us!!  I seem to recall some fingers-wagging-in-the-ears, tongues-sticking-out taunting but we, of course, did it right back!!! I don't know if you could get a "little bit" of polio but I got very sick as well. Mom took all the little Hummers to Dr. Larcomb's office on High Street where he gave each of us kids two shots (one in each buttocks!!) I'm assuming it was the vaccine but I don't know for sure. Night after night for three months Dad would come home after work and put Ted through a series of grueling exercises.  Not a fond memory--Ted crying, Dad yelling, but it worked. Ted had no lasting effects from the polio and returned to school & life successfully. Parents are often unsung heroes. For all his faults, my Dad was definitely one. We moved to Oakland Park the following summer. Still in IC parish, I remember the lines with crying children for shots at school. (Thankfully they were in the arm & not the buttocks!!) And mercifully, boosters came later in drinkable form in little white cups!!!

 

 


03/12/25 12:55 PM #15210    

 

Michael McLeod

every now and then i get nostalgic and read old clips.

been so long it's like reading something a stranger wrote,

i was so lucky to have been in a position to write in depth stories.

in this case, literally.

Here's a cool but kinda creepy piece I wrote a long time ago. Florida is essentially a floating peninsula. you have to understand that going in. enjoy.

 

By Michael McLeod

Orlando Sentinel Staff Writer

From the surface, it’s just a small pond in deep woods. But Wes Skiles knows better. He knows where it leads. He remembers what it once looked like. And he is all too familiar with its ghosts.

“Perfect,” he says in a dry, toneless voice, as he reaches the place in the North Florida woods where a sloping circle of forest floor gives way to the coffee-colored pool.

Skiles has lugged a movie camera deep into Peacock Springs State Park, 252 acres of wilderness near Tallahassee, to make a five-minute documentary about waters such as this. It is a spring, once crystal-clear and fast-running, now matted and nearly still.

The documentary will be used by the officials of the Suwannee River Water Management District in a campaign to protect the region’s springs, weakened by a lengthy drought, threatened by pollution and increased water usage.

 

None of the campaign’s charts and figures will convey the delicate majesty of the springs and the subterranean waterways that feed them. That’s where the bearded man in a sleeveless dive-shop T-shirt comes in.

At 49, Skiles is the dean of Florida cave divers. He knows better than anyone how to turn on the lights in Florida’s basement. Most of his life has been devoted to illuminating the pitch-dark, ill-understood, quadrillion-gallon network of rivulets, streams and water-filled caverns that riddles the peninsula’s porous limestone foundation and feeds pristine water to hundreds of springs.

 

 

Scientists call it the Floridan Aquifer. Skiles has been exploring, mapping, photographing and filming it since his first dive to the caves and passageways beneath Ginnie Springs, 35 miles northwest of Gainesville, in 1971. He was 13. Cave diving was in its infancy. By the time he graduated from high school, he had become one of its pioneers.

He crafted specialized cave-diving equipment in shop class. He spent weekends exploring the endless array of uncharted limestone passageways at Ginnie Springs.

He recovered his first body when he was 16.

Cave diving offers numerous opportunities for fatal errors. Miscalculate your air supply and lose a race back to the surface. Kick up too much silt with your fins, and become blind and confused in the waterborne blizzard. Lose track of the line you unreel to keep from getting lost, and make the last wrong turn of your life.

Panic.

One or more of those things doomed two college students who had gone scuba diving in Ginnie Springs. Rescue divers unfamiliar with its labyrinths found one body but had searched in vain for the other. Skiles volunteered to help and led them to the young man’s body, shrouded in a film of chalky silt.

“There were a lot of nights afterward when I sat bolt upright in my bed,” he recalled. “From that point on, I knew there was more to life than pimples, proms and football games.”

He didn’t know the half of it.

Learning from life

Skiles never went to college. All of his professional skills, and many of his personal qualities, are connected to his lifelong passion for the aquifer.

He moved to get closer to it as soon as he could, leaving his childhood home in Jacksonville in favor of the rural North Florida counties — Gilchrist, Levy, Lafayette, Suwannee, Alachua — that offer the best cave diving in the state.

He took jobs as a dive-shop technician and diving instructor, and spent his spare time driving back-country roads in a car stashed with scuba gear, hoping to discover hidden springs leading to unexplored passageways and caverns. One night, emerging from a farmland spring he had sneaked into, he saw a shadowy figure approaching. He began formulating an apology for trespassing. None was necessary: His silent companion was a cow.

Soon, he became part of a group of North Florida cave divers who called themselves “The Mole Tribe.” They competed with one another to see who could find more miles of unexplored passageways and caverns. Skiles did his share, discovering 400 miles worth of previously uncharted cave systems and recording all of it in meticulous maps.

But it wasn’t just about exploring the unknown for him. It was about understanding it.

Where was the crisscrossing flow of water coming from? How far had it traveled? Which underwater tributaries fed which springs? How had the homes, farms, businesses and roads hundreds of feet above it affected the ancient system below?

He showed scientists his maps and talked to them about his observations, feeling out of his depth: After all, they had positions and Ph.D.s. He was a dive bum with a high-school diploma and a C average to his credit.

But through the years, he gained confidence in his own, first-person observations. He learned how to take professional-quality still photographs and movies, and began developing a career as a filmmaker, traveling all over the world — to the Yucatan, the North and South Pacific, Australia, Antarctica — to make underwater documentaries.

It was the life he had always wanted, a life of exploration and adventure, all because of the Floridan Aquifer.

That’s over, now, though. All because of the Floridan Aquifer.

‘He’s tenacious’

Skiles’ globe-trotting career began evaporating soon after the appearance of a documentary that may be the most important he has ever made.

Six years ago, at the urging of the newly formed Florida Springs Task Force, he began working on a series called Water’s Journey. Its goal was to illustrate the fragility of critical, complex waterways.

One of the documentaries, The Hidden Rivers of Florida, depicted the vulnerability of the subterranean passageways he knew so well. He filmed a team of divers as they traveled several miles through its depths. A separate team used newly developed radio-telemetry equipment to track the divers’ journey from ground level, tracing their path across the landscape.

The finished footage of the documentary cuts back and forth between the modern world above and the ancient one below.

It shows the divers as they encounter the jawbone of a mastodon, circa 10,000 B.C., just a few yards from a discarded tractor tire, circa the 1990s.

It shows the above-ground team as it follows the divers’ path across a golf course and a highway, then inside a bowling alley and a Sonny’s Real Pit Bar-B-Q. (“Looks like they’re headed for the salad bar,” a member of the team muses, as they barge past patrons too preoccupied with coleslaw and pulled pork to notice them.)

The series was a watershed for Skiles. It heightened his profile in the public eye and drew him, grudgingly, into a new phase of his career.

Now, instead of taking on glamorous assignments, he makes speeches to civic groups and schoolchildren. He attends conferences as a sort of freelance advocate for the aquifer, the only one in flip-flops among suited lobbyists, policy directors, attorneys, water bottlers and developers.

“He’s tenacious,” said Harley Means, a geologist with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. “There are hundreds of cave divers around, but Wes is the one who has stepped forward. His passion draws people to him from the moment he stands up to speak and opens his mouth.”

“I’m a reluctant soldier,” Skiles said. “What I really need to do right now is pack up and go off to some wild place I’ve never been to.

“But I can’t. “

He can’t because he considers the aquifer Florida’s final wilderness and feels compelled to play a role in protecting it.

“When Theodore Roosevelt saw the Grand Tetons and Yellowstone, he realized that they were such a spectacular part of the landscape that they needed to be preserved and protected forever,” he said. “I feel like that about the springs. When you’ve seen them the way I have, the clearness of the water, the strength of the flow — they are like jewels of nature.”

Ghosts of divers past

Skiles lives in High Springs with his wife, Terri, and their daughter, Tessa. He has an office filled with mementos: a photo he took of a vast underwater cavern, another of the massive iceberg he explored. The workshop next to it is filled with dive equipment. On a wall is a faded Star Trek poster, decorated with the familiar slogan: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.” A friend gave it to him years ago, when the phrase could have passed for his job description.

His home is a short drive from Ginnie Springs, the place where his journey as an explorer began. But he rarely goes cave diving these days. It’s not because of fear. It’s not because of commitments. It’s because of ghosts.

It’s Sheck Exley, his first teacher and hero, who died while trying to set a depth record.

It’s Bill Hurst, director of pollution control for Alachua County, who showed Skiles how to map caves. He died in the depths just a few hundred yards from that pool of water at Peacock Springs. He had written a farewell note on a waterproof slate. Skiles keeps it in his office.

“I got lost,” it says. “Tell my wife and my kids I love them.”

It’s Ron Simmons, one of the charter members of The Mole Tribe, who stayed underwater too long in a system of narrow passageways near the Suwannee River, a system that Skiles discovered and shared with him. He died in February, just 300 feet from safety.

“I’ll speak out for the aquifer for the rest of my life,” Skiles said. “It’s my passion. But I guess I could have made a better choice. I picked the deathly hollows of narrow underwater spaces where my friends go to die.

“I picked the worst thing on the planet to love.”

Originally Published: September 23, 2007 at 12:00 AM EDT


03/12/25 02:43 PM #15211    

 

Mark Schweickart

Wow, Mike, what a fascinating article! Great job!

I am sure it gives you a nice feeling when you run across a piece like this that you wrote back in your journalistic heyday. However, if you are anything like me though, I am guessing it also gives you a somewhat sad, poignant feeling as well. In my case (although never a published writer like yourself) when I reread some of my writing efforts, I tend to first smile to myself thinking, "Hey, that was pretty damn good," but then this is followed by a chagrin from knowing that those creative juices don't seem to be flowing like that any longer, so the moment always proves to be rather bittersweet. Does rereading your work ever hit you this way? Acknowledging one's age and creeping decrepitude can be quite the bitch, eh what?

 


03/12/25 03:16 PM #15212    

 

David Mitchell

Likewise here Mike. Great peice of writing.

------------

And Clare,

Thanks for verifying that my memory isn't completely shot.

I wonder how many other schools gave out the polio shots in large group numbers?

 


03/12/25 03:38 PM #15213    

 

David Mitchell

It just occured to me that we have not seen a drawing from Mr. Foster in quite some time.

Helloooo Larry, are you out there?


03/12/25 07:39 PM #15214    

 

Michael McLeod

hey thanks for the compliments. but yes mark like you I second guess myself. i bet most writers do. when i read that cave diving story over i wondered about that ending which is pretty raw and sobering. not exactly the most pleasant way of leaving the reader off at the curb.

and i do miss writing. but i don't miss how hard it is.


03/12/25 09:57 PM #15215    

 

Mark Schweickart

Mike -- Oh I must disagree with you about the ending of your article. I think its gravitas made for a powerful conclusion. 


03/12/25 09:59 PM #15216    

 

David Mitchell

Mike,

I also get some sort of reward from writing. As I my have mentiond, I have finally started my book. Now, the more I write, the more I want to wright.

Maybe it's some form of an addiction???

 


03/13/25 01:09 AM #15217    

 

Michael McLeod

thanks again mark and dave and anyone else who took the time to read one of my stories from back in the day.

I may post other pieces now and then if I think they'd be of interest.

I should have added this, for the benefit of those who read the story. It's his obit. He died while doing what he loved. His family sued the scuba tank company, claiming that the tank he was using on the dive was faulty, but the suit was dismissed. So I guess this is a cautionary tale for any divers among you.

From his obit:

 

 

Skiles died on July 21, 2010, while using a breathing system that recycles exhaled gases rather than conventional scuba tanks filled with oxygen.

 

 

 


03/13/25 08:39 AM #15218    

 

Michael McLeod

 

Sorry about being so blabby lately but I just fully retired and a lot of things are going through my mind.

I do hope you liked the cave diver story.

And now while i'm at it I want to pay tribute to someone who helped to get me started as a writer and no it wasn't one of our teachers at watterson - at least not directly. They may have helped, they most certainly did, but the turning point for me wasn't a teacher.

It was a poem. 

I’m serious. I may have gone in a different direction were it not for the fact that back when we were in high school I ran across this poem and took it to heart and decided that I would "unite my avocation with my vocation."

 

Thanks, Mr. Frost. To this day, reading this poem puts tears in my eyes.

If you are like me you picture him as a fragile old man.

this from his early years shows him in a different light.

and his voice is clear and clever and profound -- and practical.

 

 

 

Two Tramps in Mud Time

  • Out of the mud two strangers came
    And caught me splitting wood in the yard,
    And one of them put me off my aim
    By hailing cheerily “Hit them hard!”
    I knew pretty well why he dropped behind
    And let the other go on a way.
    I knew pretty well what he had in mind:
    He wanted to take my job for pay.

    Good blocks of beech it was I split,
    As large around as the chopping block;
    And every piece I squarely hit
    Fell splinterless as a cloven rock.
    The blows that a life of self-control
    Spares to strike for the common good
    That day, giving a loose to my soul,
    I spent on the unimportant wood.

    The sun was warm but the wind was chill.
    You know how it is with an April day
    When the sun is out and the wind is still,
    You’re one month on in the middle of May.
    But if you so much as dare to speak,
    A cloud comes over the sunlit arch,
    A wind comes off a frozen peak,
    And you’re two months back in the middle of March.

    A bluebird comes tenderly up to alight
    And fronts the wind to unruffle a plume
    His song so pitched as not to excite
    A single flower as yet to bloom.
    It is snowing a flake: and he half knew
    Winter was only playing possum.
    Except in color he isn’t blue,
    But he wouldn’t advise a thing to blossom.

    The water for which we may have to look
    In summertime with a witching wand,
    In every wheel rut’s now a brook,
    In every print of a hoof a pond.
    Be glad of water, but don’t forget
    The lurking frost in the earth beneath
    That will steal forth after the sun is set
    And show on the water its crystal teeth.

    The time when most I loved my task
    These two must make me love it more
    By coming with what they came to ask.
    You’d think I never had felt before
    The weight of an axhead poised aloft,
    The grip on earth of outspread feet.
    The life of muscles rocking soft
    And smooth and moist in vernal heat.

    Out of the woods two hulking tramps
    (From sleeping God knows where last night,
    But not long since in the lumber camps.)
    They thought all chopping was theirs of right.
    Men of the woods and lumberjacks,
    They judged me by their appropriate tool.
    Except as a fellow handled an ax,
    They had no way of knowing a fool.

    Nothing on either side was said.
    They knew they had but to stay their stay
    And all their logic would fill my head:
    As that I had no right to play
    With what was another man’s work for gain.
    My right might be love but theirs was need.
    And where the two exist in twain
    Theirs was the better right — agreed.

    But yield who will to their separation,
    My object in living is to unite
    My avocation and my vocation
    As my two eyes make one in sight.
    Only where love and need are one,
    And the work is play for mortal stakes,
    Is the deed ever really done
    For heaven and the future’s sakes.

     

     


03/13/25 02:21 PM #15219    

 

Mary Margaret Clark (Schultheis)

Lovely words from Robert Frost....a poem whose meaning I can easily interpret. Not so with many I had to read in literature classes. Thanks Mike.


03/13/25 02:44 PM #15220    

 

Mary Margaret Clark (Schultheis)

And Democrats think Elon Musk & Donald Trump are evil for exposing all this corruption? How does one condone the waste & abuse of our tax dollars? FYI....one our classmates shared this with me today:

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369704326112


03/13/25 03:04 PM #15221    

 

Mark Schweickart

Mike -- I think you and I are both afflicted with a bit of the hereafter disease these days. You know, it's like when you walk into a room , look pensively around, and then say to yourself, "What did I come in here after?" In other words you may be having a bit of memory lapse these days. I know I certainly am. I say this because I am guessing that you have forgotten that you posted this same Robert Frost poem a few weeks ago (post 15038). But it's good news for me, because I am pleasantly surprised that I somehow remembered that. Wow, how did that happen? (I mean remembering the poem post, not the post number -- that I had to look up of course.)


03/13/25 07:58 PM #15222    

 

Michael McLeod

yikes thanks mark. I am clearly senile as hell. 


03/13/25 10:11 PM #15223    

 

John Jackson

MM, not remotely credible, especially coming from Fox (sic) News.  Lee Zeldin is a Republican hack and another Trump DEI hire who, like most of Trump's clown car cabinet, has absolutely no experience or expertise in leading the agency he was appointed to head.  He was appointed to be an attack dog.

Can you tell us Zeldin's environmental background and qualifications? 


03/13/25 10:30 PM #15224    

 

Michael McLeod

Pick on Canada and buddy up to Russia. Way to go, tough guy on the block! USA! USA!


03/14/25 01:08 PM #15225    

Timothy Lavelle

Sooooo, two cannibals are eating a clown.

One cannibal asks the other, "Does this taste funny?"

 

Geez, John, I thought Led Zeplin was a favorite of yours? (New glasses waiting at Costco!)


03/14/25 03:42 PM #15226    

 

Michael McLeod

aahh! at my age cleaning the pool leaves me winded. a zero percent heiniken revives me.


03/14/25 05:23 PM #15227    

 

David Mitchell

Tim,

Loved your clown joke!  

-----------------

M/M,

I would be the first to agree that our Federal budget is dangerouly bloated, and so many programs and agencies are full of "fat" and need to be steamlined.

But this "slash and burn" way of going about it  is a disater - doing as much harm as good. And how can we NOT call out the many conflicts of interest that Elon has - an unelected party, who has benefitted from multiple contracts in the billions with this government?

Why not appoint committes that know what they are talking about and let them weed out the waste - over a gradual period (mitigating the shock effect on the markets) and reducing the harm done to innocent people who have done nothing but their assigned jobs.

P.s.  to use Jesse Watters as your source for ANYTHING is a joke.

--------------------

Todays "rally/warning" speech at the Justice Department was downright scary!


03/14/25 05:41 PM #15228    

 

David Mitchell

Former Republican Senator Al Simpson of Wyoming died today. 

He was a no nonsense type of guy who would never have stood for some if this recent MAGA bullshit.

Where are those guys when we need them? Seems like they've all sold out to this cowardly whore-mongering draft dodger.

RIP


03/14/25 06:55 PM #15229    

 

James Hamilton, M. D.

Walls, Woofers, Water and Wolves: Part 3 (Final)

Some say that all politics are local.

This is, at the very least, regional. I doubt this final "W" would have much of an effect in Ohio. 

A few years ago a  Colorado ballot issue was passed to allow the reintroduction of grey wolves into the state. Depending on what part of the state in which one lives this may have no effect or may have a drastic effect. The main voting block in the Centennial State reside in the cities of Denver, Boulder and Aurora. Those are metropolitan areas which are highly unlikely to ever encounter a wolf pack. The rest of the state cannot outnumber them and so the measure was mostly passed by those "with no skin in the game".

Many who understand wildlife management were against this measure as were the ranchers and others who reside in the areas west of the front range of the Rocky Mountains.

Several wolves, including mating pairs, have now been released into "the wild" of north central and western  western Colorado (from their homes in other states and Canada) and more continue to be. This has led to wolf packs which are spreading out to larger areas of the state and now are even approaching our El Paso county. 

These packs have attacked and killed many cattle which, of course, are is an economic tragedy for the ranchers. How many other wild animals in the ecosystem have been killed is unknown and the balance of nature may well be being affected. I feel it is only a matter of time before human lives will be lost.

Many, including myself, think this was a terrible idea and it seems to be proving itself to be true. Now, I am all for a healthy wildlife equilibrium, but this was a mistake and how - and if - it can be rectified is uncertain.

On a more personal level, I have spent many hours in the forests photographing the beauty of Colorado and have always been wary of critters I may encounter. Since I am older now I do this less often. But I hope that I still have a foray or two left in this old body. Usually I carry my bear spray with me but I don't know how that would work against a pack of 6-8 wolves!

Hopefully, I'll never have to find out!

Jim

 

 


03/14/25 07:58 PM #15230    

 

Mark Schweickart

Tim -- Like Dave, I too enjoyed your joke. So after reading your post, I turned to my wife and said, "Two cannibals were eating a clown and..." but before I get the next words out, she looks down her nose at me and says, "...does this taste funny?"

Don't you hate it when this happens?


03/15/25 08:50 AM #15231    

 

Mary Margaret Clark (Schultheis)

John & Dave.....https://www.theohiopressnetwork.com/news/us/a-new-beltway-mystery-follow-the-biden-epa-money/article_a28a55b3-a8ec-50ff-8f99-674848075e7d.html


03/15/25 11:27 AM #15232    

Timothy Lavelle

Mark,

Clearly your lovely has more sense than you and I and Dave put tgether. 

A neutron walks into a bar and asks "How much for a drink?" to which the barkeep replies, "For you, no charge!".

'anything for a laugh lavelle' strikes (out) again...


03/16/25 03:30 AM #15233    

 

Michael McLeod

just in case you had any doubts about what's at stake. It's pretty much summed up in the third paragraph if you're busy. 

Or in the first sentence, for that matter.

from the new york times

 

 

By Meghan O’Rourke

(Ms. O’Rourke is the editor of The Yale Review and a professor in the English department at Yale University.)

The rumors had been building for months: The Trump administration was coming for the universities. In the weeks after the president issued his first executive orders in January, the effects rippled through my academic world: A Rutgers conference on H.B.C.U.s was canceled; graduate students on visas asked a professor I know if it was safe for them to travel; a colleague at a public university texted about an undergraduate crying in his office, worried about the job landscape. There was news of endangered climate projects, grant pages disappearing (and sometimes later reappearing) as people were applying to them and forestalled scientific programs of all kinds, including one at Columbia’s maternal health center studying how to reduce America’s maternal mortality rate.

A meeting at Yale, where I teach, to discuss the impact of the Trump administration’s policies had to be moved to a larger auditorium because so many concerned faculty members showed interest in attending. After listening to a bracing description of the financial implications of the government edicts, we milled about, stunned. The reality was much worse than we had imagined. I run a small program for students who want to be editors and writers. In the grips of uncertainty, I stayed up late that night to figure out which parts I would have to kill if my budget was cut. I finally realized there was no good solution; in that scenario, I would have to cancel the whole thing.

Conservatives have been trying to reshape the American university since the federal government began funding it in earnest in the mid-20th century. But now the Trump administration appears prepared to destroy it. The administration has issued sweeping executive orders and deployed the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to slash funding; dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and intervene in university policy. On March 7 the administration announced it was pulling $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, alleging “continued inaction” to protect the civil rights of Jewish students on campus during the protests against the war in Gaza. The result, if all goes through, will be nothing less than the permanent diminishment of research universities and an upheaval of the free speech principles at the core of the country.

This attack on higher education has been a long-brewing project for Trump-aligned conservatives. Christopher Rufo, a key architect of the assault, has been explicit about the strategy: use financial pressure to put universities into what he called “existential terror,” making compliance seem like the only viable option, forcing them to dismantle programs and reshape hiring and curriculums. Mr. Rufo, who was invited to Mar-a-Lago to discuss higher education overhauls shortly after Donald Trump was elected again, views universities as having been “captured” by leftist ideology and rejects the idea that diversity is a worthwhile goal. He envisions a radical restructuring of the humanities, replacing current frameworks with what he confusingly calls a “classical” model while bringing in more conservative faculty members.

This assault isn’t happening in a vacuum, of course. Decades of conservative attacks have primed the public to see universities as elitist indoctrination centers. These attacks date at least to the Red Scare in the 1950s, when suspected Marxist professors were forced to testify before the Senate (and the F.B.I. leaked disparaging information about 400 teachers and professors to their employers). But more recently these attacks have evolved into a strategic, well-funded campaign. As Ellen Schrecker, a historian who studies higher education and political repression, noted in a 2023 essay: “During the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s … right-wing philanthropists poured millions of dollars into demonizing higher education as infested by ‘political correctness’ whose advocates supposedly purveyed a dogmatic brand of left-wing identity politics while suppressing free speech and conservative discourse on their campuses.”

 

Mr. Trump and his allies have hammered home that message, fueling Republican distrust in academia, even as soaring tuition costs put private institutions ever more out of reach and the pandemic deepened skepticism in expertise. Gallup polls found that in 2015, 57 percent of Americans had a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in higher education, a figure that had dropped to 36 percent by 2023. Among Republicans, it cratered from 56 percent to 20 percent. Some of this distrust stems from the fact that since the late 1990s, the number of university faculty members who identify as liberal has risen, while the numbers of moderates and conservatives have declined. But it’s also the product of the right’s campaign against universities, which has caricatured them as breeding grounds for a narrow-minded woke ideology that brooks no dissent, rather than the large, complicated places they are. While there have been instances of a campus left that was hubristically convinced of its own point of view, the reality for most of us who teach on campus looks nothing like the distorted portrait that the right has painted.

Indeed, it’s crucial to acknowledge the qualitative difference between any excesses the left has committed in the enforcement of campus norms and speech and the federal government’s decision to use the full force of state power to prevent people from saying things it doesn’t like. As Hari Kunzru, a novelist who teaches creative writing at N.Y.U., put it to me recently, “The notion that this is a justified response to the excesses of the left is not a legitimate framing.” The destruction underway is not a considered reaction to allegations of civil rights violations or a fine-tuned reform of university policy. Instead, it is a hammer smashing a very complicated mechanism. It will have real, damaging consequences across party lines. It will dismantle expertise that benefits America and its status in the world. Cancer research. Maternal health. Climate-related technology. All this will be materially worse off. The economic impacts will be enormous. But so, too, will be the cultural ones. What is really happening here is an attack on the American faith in knowledge as a value and a public good that has served us well.

For much of its history, the American university has stood at the intersection of knowledge production and national interest. The Morrill Act of 1862, which established land-grant universities, was one of the first federal efforts to expand access to higher education, aligning colleges with the needs of a growing industrial economy. In 1890, the Second Morrill Act brought funding to historically Black colleges and universities and reinforced the idea that higher education was a public good, one that served not only individuals but also the broader needs of the nation. But it was World War II and the Cold War that fundamentally transformed universities into engines of state power, binding research to military and technological supremacy.

The war effort had demonstrated the strategic value of academic research. Universities played a crucial role in projects like the Manhattan Project and the development of radar, showing that scientific breakthroughs created by university research could determine military superiority. In 1945, Vannevar Bush, a key wartime science administrator, argued that the federal government should sustain this partnership in peacetime, leading to the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950. From then on, higher education was integral to American dominance on the global stage.

 

By the 1960s, in the wake of Russia’s launch of the Sputnik satellite, America was seized by a national fervor for scientific and technological education. Federal R & D funding skyrocketed, supporting not just engineering and military projects but also the social sciences, humanities and the arts. Universities became hubs of government-backed knowledge production. In 1957, funding from the National Science Foundation stood at $40 million; by 1968, it had climbed to nearly $500 million. These investments fueled space exploration, medical research, literary magazines and global diplomacy. Knowledge in this era was not partisan; it was a national asset.

Yet this arrangement also carried contradictions with it. While the university thrived on public funding, the presence of left-wing voices among its students and faculty members made it a target for conservatives, who, as evidenced by the Red Scare, were already profoundly distrustful of left-leaning academics. Ronald Reagan targeted Berkeley’s free speech movement in his campaign to become governor of California. In the late 1960s, President Richard Nixon’s administration debated cutting university funding over Vietnam War protests on campuses. Though it never followed through, more than 100 people without tenure were fired for their political activities, and states considered bills to criminalize participation in campus protests. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush attacked “political correctness” for restricting “enterprise, speech and spirit” and leading to “bullying.” But on a broader level there seemed to be a tacit sense on the right that for all of its problems, the modern research university was of real value — even a great strength of America, a reason people come here, an instrument of soft power and, indeed, a branding tool. As Nixon himself originally put it, when he rejected House-proposed legislation to end federal funding to universities that allowed campus protests of the war, doing so would be “cutting off our nose to spite our face.” The responsibility, he insisted, “should be on the college administrators.”

Not now. What is distinctive about what is happening is that the very concept of the research university as an autonomous institution is under direct attack. The shift is stark. If, during the Cold War, the government funded universities as a way of strengthening America, Mr. Trump’s second administration treats them as a threat to be dismantled. The real question driving their “reforms” is not whether federal support for universities should continue but whether universities deserve to exist in their current form at all.

If the university has always been politicized one way or another, why should conservatives care about protecting the intellectual freedom currently housed in what are predominantly liberal institutions? The answer is earnest and aspirational: because the serious, reflective work of scholarship benefits us all. Because academic freedom makes it possible to critique institutionality from within at a time when institutions rule our lives. Because it permits intellectuals and scientists to question realities we have become complacent about. Because it creates space for values that live outside the capitalist marketplace. Because it houses art and artists. Yes, the university can be, like any community anywhere, divisive, censorious, sometimes too ideologically homogeneous. But when it works, it trains people to think critically, powerfully and unflinchingly. The strongest critiques of the National Institutes of Health I’ve heard, for instance, have been voiced not by Mr. Trump or Elon Musk but by academics who understand its workings and have the theoretical framework to imagine how to reform it.

The Trump administration’s orders arrive at a precarious moment in America — a moment of transformative technologies, escalating climate crises and global instability. It’s a moment that demands more from universities, not less. “The core mission of the humanities is more important than ever,” Robin Kelsey, a former dean of arts and humanities at Harvard, told me. As he explained, the humanities as we know them emerged in response to the violence of the two world wars, precisely because those conflicts revealed that scientific progress does not guarantee moral progress. A humanist education teaches us to question dominant narratives, to recognize how certain ways of thinking rise to prominence while others fade from view.

 

Dr. Kelsey warned against abandoning the humanities precisely when their lessons are most needed. “One of the contradictions at the heart of the humanities,” he said, “is that they are supposed to practice the same skepticism, open inquiry and refusal of dogma that science is known for — while also addressing questions about meaning, virtue and ethics, which had long been the domain of religion.” That contradiction has made the humanities both essential and vulnerable, open to attack from those who see them as frivolous or politically suspect. But what is now more clear than ever is that Mr. Rufo and other Trump-aligned ideologues actually know how important the humanities, and the civic and aesthetic values they explore, are. That is precisely why so much effort is being spent on trying to impose a set of nostalgic, premodern views at the heart of the university.

The defunding of Columbia and the threat of future cuts has sent a chill through the halls of academia. If the battle over universities were only about budgets, the fight might be different. But what is being targeted is something more profound: the ability of institutions to sustain the freedoms that form the foundation of our democracy. Mr. Trump campaigned on free speech: “I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America,” he told Congress on March 4. But make no mistake: His administration is trying to force universities to conform — and to make its faculty members quite literally stop saying or studying things that they don’t want said out loud or studied. Most egregiously, the acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, recently wrote the dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, a Catholic institution, saying that it was “unacceptable” for the school to “teach D.E.I.” (whatever that means) and declaring that until Georgetown revised its curriculum, his office would refuse to hire — that is, would blacklist — its students.

The obvious threat here is that institutions will fall in line with the administration’s broadest goals in order to preserve their funding. But beyond that, there is the deeper threat that the Polish poet Czesław Miłosz identified in “The Captive Mind,” his exploration of how intellectuals adapt to authoritarian regimes. Living under Soviet rule, Mr. Miłosz observed that artists and scholars, without direct coercion, anticipated the regime’s desires, adjusting their behavior before the government even had to intervene. Fear reshaped their internal weather, dictating what they would — and wouldn’t — say.

That fear, or one like it, is settling now into American institutions. Last week, it became more difficult to get affected professors and university administrators to talk to me, whereas before, many had been eager to weigh in. The silence was instructive. In a faculty meeting I attended recently, in a high-ceilinged room with carved wood and delicately painted windows, anxiety reverberated. We were warned of funding cuts. But the real wound ran deeper: the quiet, creeping sense that something larger — the very idea of the university as a place of free inquiry — was slipping away. In an era when both the right and the left have had their moments of speech policing and ideological rigidity, some hope this moment will force universities to rethink their own commitments to open inquiry, that it will serve as an invitation to resist the intellectual and moral narrowing that happens not only through government decree but also through the hardening of internal orthodoxy.

But the more likely outcome is that this moment will close, rather than expand, the range of what is possible. Because what we are witnessing is not just an attack on academia or a set of fiscal reforms or a painful political rebalancing. It is an attack on the conditions that allow free thought to exist. We may not yet know its full cost, but we will feel its consequences.


go to top 
  Post Message
  
    Prior Page
 Page  
Next Page