Mind Your Words. Censorship at US Universities | Current Affairs Lecture with political scientist Chris Nijhuis and neuroscientist Fleur Zeldenrust

To Van Caspel’s question as to what developments we are seeing, Zeldenrust opened with a stark example: “Certain grants with diversity clauses or that are about diversity have been cut. Based on a rather stupid word-search which also targets research that has nothing to do with the topics that the government wants to ban.” Nijhuis added that the situation extended beyond flagged words, describing it as “a big conflict between government and universities.”

According to Nijhuis, the U.S. government, particularly under the Trump administration, has used accusations of antisemitism as a tool to impose restrictions on universities without going through Congress. “They bypass Congress and the courts, taking power from other branches,” he stated. Institutions are threatened with the loss of federal funding unless they comply with new oversight demands, such as halting research in specific areas and placing departments under supervision.

Ideology and Control

Van Caspel asked what Trump hopes to achieve with such policies. Nijhuis connected the issue to a broader political agenda: populism, authoritarianism, and anti-woke ideology. “Populism is anti-elitist and anti-pluralist,” he explained. Research and public institutions become targets, especially when they use terms like “sex,” “racism,” or “diverse.” These words are seen as representing “special interests,” which populist narratives treat as threats to the unity of “the people.”

Zeldenrust described the resulting atmosphere in American academia as chaotic and fearful. “They are in panic mode,” she said. “I’m surprised that I’m even standing here as a STEM researcher. Most of the research was not controversial a couple of months ago.” She emphasized the absurdity of the current climate: “The fact that it now somehow is controversial to research a cure for cancer is wild.”

Both speakers underscored the growing risk to scientific credibility. “They’re undermining the reputation of research and science,” said Nijhuis. Zeldenrust added that her team had to censor research titles to avoid blacklisting. “Just having this word in the title is suddenly controversial.”

When Van Caspel challenged whether this amounted to caving in, Zeldenrust acknowledged the tension. “I get that point, but I also want to make sure my colleagues’ livelihoods are okay.” Nijhuis noted a troubling development: “We’re now seeing academic refugees from the US for the first time.” Zeldenrust compared the situation to the newspeak in Orwell’s 1984.

Transatlantic Impact

The discussion shifted to Europe, where a recent questionnaire in the Netherlands revealed local implications. Zeldenrust explained how Dutch universities are entangled with American data infrastructure and tech platforms. “We’re dependent on tech companies,” she said. However, she pointed to a rare example of autonomy at Radboud University: “We store our own research data at the Radboud University which means we own it. That is quite unique.”

When asked whether Trump’s stance on free speech contradicts these actions, Nijhuis responded, “This argument is mostly used as a weapon to select opinions that you like over ones that you don’t.” He referenced Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter—now X—as an example.

Yet, resistance is building. “Harvard is pushing back against what they call clearly illegal actions,” Nijhuis said. “That’s really important, cause they have a lot of power. This may lead other institutions to stand up as well.” Zeldenrust wondered aloud whether the academic world could adopt its own form of resistance: “Couldn’t we do the same and put words like ‘diversity’ in every research paper?”

She also emphasized the lesson this moment offers: “What’s positive about what’s happening is that we’re realizing now that there is a real threat if we don’t own our own data.” Zeldenrust proposed that the next step may be to implement our own private email.

Defending freedom

Van Caspel closed by asking what can be done about declining academic freedom, including in the Netherlands. Zeldenrust urged universities to act: “Put this topic on the agenda. Push that message.” Nijhuis stressed the need for principled defense of open discourse: “It’s important to stand up for rights of people you don’t agree with.” He warned against passive compliance: “The first rule to combat authoritarianism is to not obey in advance. I’m seeing that happen in some places in the university now.”

Zeldenrust echoed that message with a call to preserve academic dialogue. “The university should be an example of open discussion between people who disagree. If we can’t do it here, we can’t do it anywhere.”

Announcement

What effect will the censorship of so called ‘woke’ words have for US Universities, and the academic world at large? Black, exclusion, bias, marginalized, sex. These are just a few words of a long list that the Trump administration would like to see disappear from public and academic discourse. This has major influence on many areas of research. Some studies are even losing their funding and have to be terminated. What are the consequences? Come listen to political scientist Chris Nijhuis and neuroscientist Fleur Zeldenrust and learn more about the battle between Trump and US universities.

Purge

As President Trump seeks to purge the government any “woke” elements, hundreds of words have been flagged to limit or avoid. Sometimes, this goes so far as an order to remove certain words from public-facing websites, school curricula and academic articles. All this is especially troublesome for American universities that receive a large amount of government funding. Many now have a choice: conform to the Trump administration or face major financial problems. What options do they have? What does the opposition to this censorship look like? And what is it about these particular words that rubs the current US administration the wrong way?

Effects on Europe

How do the censorship at US Universities  affect research in the rest of the world? How do universities and scientists here in Europe notice US censorship? And is Dutch research also affected?

Political scientist Chris Nijhuis and neuroscientist Fleur Zeldenrust discuss the effects of censorship within and outside of the US. Philosopher Frank van Caspel will moderate the discussion. 

Come and ask your questions. 

This programme is in English. 

About the speakers

Chris Nijhuis is a political scientist at Radboud University. He is an expert on American politics, and his research focusses on the impact of populist parties on the foreign policy of states, with a special focus on the link between national identity and foreign policy.

Fleur Zeldenrust is a neuroscientist at Radboud University and affiliated with the Donders Institute. In her research group “Biophysics of Neural Computation,” she investigates the relationship between the physical properties of the brain and the way the brain processes information. Recently she was interviewed by the KNAW about the impact of Trump’s policy on fundamental research.