The pro-Palestinian protests that erupted on many college campuses in the spring of 2024 gave rise to a surge of complaints about antisemitism at colleges across the United States. Under pressure to respond, Columbia and Harvard Universities have both in the past year adopted into policy a common definition of antisemitism, using the text as a guide in discrimination investigations. But defining the line between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and antisemitism has long bedeviled scholars, and refereeing such cases invites concerns about free speech and academic freedom. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism, upon which Columbia and Harvard now rely, wasn’t ever intended to be a speech code and shouldn’t be used as such, says Kenneth Stern, who helped to draft the text about two decades ago. But how, then, should colleges respond to concerns about hatred and prejudice aimed at Jewish people?

Colleges Use His Antisemitism Definition to Censor. He Calls It a ‘Travesty.’ (The Chronicle)

The Great Antisemitism Debate (The Chronicle) 

Why Anti-Jewish Discrimination on Campuses Might Not Violate Title VI (The Chronicle) 

UC Berkeley Hands Over 160 Names to the Federal Government for ‘Potential Connection’ to Antisemitism. (The Chronicle)  

Guest
Kenneth S. Stern, director of the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College.

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Barack Obama wants university leaders to stick to their guns. Appearing on the final episode of Marc Maron’s long-running WTF podcast, the former U.S. president urged college presidents to guard their academic independence, even if it means losing some federal money. Obama’s message comes at a pivotal moment, as the Trump administration pressures colleges to get on board with its sweeping higher-education agenda. The administration's “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” proposed this month, would require colleges to accept restrictions on admissions, hiring, and speech in exchange for preferred access to federal money. But what would passing Obama’s leadership test mean in practice? And who might be willing to risk standing up to Trump?
Related Reading

Episode 1686: Barack Obama (WTF with Marc Maron)

Trump’s ‘Compact’ is Freaking People Out (College Matters from The Chronicle)

Obama’s Legacy: An Unlikely Hawk on Higher Ed (The Chronicle)

Guest
Andy Thomason, assistant managing editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

After months of skirmishes with colleges, the Trump administration has proposed a treaty of sorts with nine high-profile institutions. By signing the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” participating colleges would essentially co-sign the president’s sprawling higher-education agenda. Under a draft agreement, signatories would explicitly ban considerations of race in admissions or in the awarding of scholarships, abolish departments that “belittle” conservative views, and strictly limit the percentage of international students enrolled in undergraduate programs. Many higher-education associations and analysts rushed to blast the proposal, which has been described as “horrifying” and reminiscent of a Mafia-style ultimatum. But what does this compact say about the historic relationship between the federal government and higher education, and how might that relationship be changing no matter what?
Related Reading

Trump’s Proposed ‘Compact’ Asks Colleges to Show They’re ‘Pursuing Federal Priorities’ (The Chronicle)

Trump Says Signing a New ‘Compact’ Will Benefit Colleges’ Finances. It Could Also Do the Opposite. (The Chronicle)

Trump’s Imperfect Compact Is a Perfect Opportunity (The Chronicle Review)

A Deal That Would End Universities’ Independence (The Atlantic)

Guest
Sarah Brown, senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education

As president of Princeton University, Christopher Eisgruber is among the highest-profile college leaders to publicly criticize the Trump administration for its attacks on higher education. He is a defender of the sector, arguing that colleges are far better at upholding free speech and more welcoming of diverse viewpoints than critics would suggest. The recent killing of Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist, has energized a national debate about the state of free speech on college campuses — both for conservatives like Kirk, and for faculty who have been sanctioned for speaking ill of Kirk in the wake of his death. None of this, though, changes Eisgruber’s fundamental view that colleges, for the most part, are actually quite good at facilitating tough conversations at a particularly polarized moment. It’s an argument Eisgruber lays out methodically in a new book, Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right.

Related Reading

Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right, by Christopher Eisgruber (Basic Books)

With Charlie Kirk’s Killing, a New Chapter of the Campus Speech Wars Has Begun (The Chronicle)

The Elite-University Presidents Who Despise One Another (The Atlantic)

At Yale, Painful Rifts Emerge Over Diversity and Free Speech (The Chronicle)

The Trump administration is hitting universities where it hurts, terminating thousands of research grants in areas it deems wasteful or ideologically driven. Many scientists who study vaccine hesitancy, gender identity, and climate change, have either lost grant money or been put on notice that their federal funding could soon disappear. What does this mean for the U.S. academic-research enterprise, which seeks to cure diseases, understand societal problems, and even save the planet? And how might a highly politicized approach to doling out federal research money change the nature of science itself?

Related Reading: 
The Scientists Who Got Ghosted by the NIH (The Chronicle) 

An NIH Grant Is Restored, With a Catch: Cut a Study on Trans Youth (The Chronicle) 

The NIH is Requiring Grantees to Follow Trump’s Anti-Trans Executive Order (The Chronicle) 

Their NIH Grants are Back. But Nothing is Back to Normal. (The Chronicle) 

Guest

Stephanie M. Lee, senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Christopher F. Rufo, a conservative activist, is on what he might call a winning streak. Long before it was fashionable to do so, Rufo, a senior fellow at the right-leaning Manhattan Institute, was leading the charge against diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on college campuses. Now, many universities — by law or by choice — are ditching DEI programs as fast as they can. Beyond that, Rufo has waged numerous online pressure campaigns against college leaders, leading to the resignations or scuttled appointments of those who’ve extolled the virtues of DEI. His airing of plagiarism allegations against Claudine Gay, the former president of Harvard University, contributed to her leadership downfall in 2024. But what is really behind Rufo’s philosophy? What would the “colorblind equality” he prescribes for colleges actually look like in practice? And how far does he think President Trump should go to upend higher education?

00:00 - 7:40: Rufo’s path to conservatism
7:40 - 14:51: Politics of DEI
14:51 - 19:48 : Race and admissions
20:03 - 24:51: ‘Meritocracy’
24:51 - 31:02: Do you think race matters?
31:01 - 32:58: The Manhattan Institute
32:58 - 35:25: Harvard’s Claudine Gay
35:25 - 46:26: Sinking Santa Ono at U. of Florida
46:26 - 50:32: Rufo’s influence / George Mason U.
50:32 - 53:19: Calling in the troops

Related Reading:  

They Have a Common Criticism of Higher Ed. And They’re Arguing. (The Chronicle)

How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory (The New Yorker) 

An Inside Job at George Mason? (The Chronicle/ProPublica)  

Santa Ono Wanted a College Presidency. He Became a Pariah. (The Chronicle) 

Guest:
Christopher F. Rufo, a senior fellow and director of the initiative on critical race theory at the Manhattan Institute

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication

The fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, whose political movement targeted liberal faculty and pushed the boundaries of free speech, immediately took on powerful symbolic resonance as a pivotal event in higher education’s long-running culture wars. Kirk, who founded Turning Point USA, a provocative right-leaning group popular on college campuses, was killed on Wednesday during a campus speaking engagement at Utah Valley University. His death shocked the country, lending a dark gravity to already-contentious debates about political polarization, intolerance, and free expression on college campuses.
Related Reading 
Making of a Martyr: Charlie Kirk’s Killing Silences a Conservative Voice. His Movement Could Grow Louder. (The Chronicle) 

Inside a Stealth Plan for Political Influence (The Chronicle) 

Was an Instructor's Firing a Violation Academic Freedom? Or an Example of 'Academic Responsibility' (The Chronicle)

Charlie Kirk Was Practicing Politics the Right Way (The New York Times) 

Guest
Nell Gluckman, senior reporter at The Chronicle of Higher Education

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

Higher education is at the center of the biggest stories in the country today, and College Matters is back to make sense of it all. Tune in for new weekly episodes starting on September 11.

Catch up on previous popular episodes:

Is Reading Over for Gen Z Students?

Why Faculty Hate Teaching Evaluations

Mr. Varsity Blues Claps Back

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters.

For decades, Bruce Springsteen’s songs about fast cars, working-class dreamers, and loves lost and found have helped to define a quintessentially American notion of freedom and rebellion. But do the music and lyrics of “The Boss” speak to the college students of Gen Z? Louis P. Masur, a distinguished professor of American studies and history at Rutgers University, thinks they do. After years of teaching a course titled “Springsteen’s American Vision,” Masur says he is as convinced as ever that the rock icon’s songs are as timeless as Huck Finn and as durable as a “big old Buick.”

Guest: Louis P. Masur, distinguished professor of American studies and history at Rutgers University
Related reading

Runaway Dream: Born to Run and Bruce Springsteen’s American Vision (Louis P. Masur)

The Boss in the Classroom (Chronicle)

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.

After the loss of a pet, many people wonder whether they'll ever see their beloved companions again. In her course, "Do All Dogs Go to Heaven?", Chelsea Jordan King, an assistant professor of Catholic studies at Sacred Heart University, presses her students to answers that provocative question. To do so, King encourages students — believers and nonbelievers alike — to use critical thinking and research to articulate and defend their positions. Along the way, students learn about the Roman Catholic Church's position on evolution, what makes human beings special, and how to better appreciate their natural surroundings.

Guest
Chelsea Jordan King, assistant professor of Catholic studies at Sacred Heart University

For more on today’s episode, visit chronicle.com/collegematters. We aim to make transcripts available within a day of an episode’s publication.