Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Inside the Harvard-Trump showdown
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hey everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your week. I'm here at the Kennedy School at Harvard University, with my buddy Steve Walt.
Stephen Walt: Nice to see you, Ian.
Ian Bremmer:
And kind of ground zero for a lot of things happening geopolitically right now. How does it feel to be an independent variable?
Stephen Walt:
It feels better than it felt two or three weeks ago when many people at the university were worried whether we were going to actually bend the knee, cave in, give the administration what it wanted, do pretty much what Columbia did. And when the administration, perhaps mistakenly, sent that letter last week or so, and the president responded appropriately, I think there was a huge collective sigh of relief in the Harvard community. And the response that Harvard has gotten now, including from people who don't like Harvard, that someone finally stood up and said, "This is unacceptable," has been quite gratifying.
Ian Bremmer:
Harvard, huge endowment, not a poor campus, lots of influence in Boston community and around the world, but we're talking about billions of dollars of funding a year. We're talking maybe about not providing green cards for international students, lifeblood of the Kennedy School. What's at stake here, do you think?
Stephen Walt:
What's at stake is the presence of independent centers of thought in a free society. I mean, ultimately this is an attempt by the administration to bring Harvard, as the world's most prominent private university, under its control. If you read the letter carefully, they were basically wanting to have control over who got hired, control over what got taught, control over content of curriculum, control over admissions, in a variety of different ways. At which point the university is no longer independent. It has to get up every morning, say to itself, "Gee, what does the president think of what we're doing here?" And that means you don't have independent thought.
So two big problems. One is of course this is going to reduce scientific and technological progress in the United States in a whole series of areas.
Ian Bremmer:
Because that's so much of what the funding is actually going for.
Stephen Walt:
That's exactly right. Particularly medical research in particular. But it's also important in a free society you have a wide range of opinions, people who can challenge what's going on, and can challenge it from the right, challenge it from the left. One of my colleagues is one of the people who discovered the China shock, that a bunch of American jobs had gone to China due to previous economic policies. Something that of course Trump has played on, etc. So the point is you want lots of different ideas in a free society. You don't want the government to be able to control what people can teach, control what people can think, because how you get big mistakes. That's how you get Mao's Great Leap Forward because no one could criticize him, no one could challenge it, no one could even report what was happening. So there's actually more at stake than just scientific research here. It's also independent thought. Again, from across the political spectrum.
Ian Bremmer:
Does it feel like a resist moment on Harvard campus right now? Is that the kind of emotion that comes with it?
Stephen Walt:
This isn't a sort of let's go to the mattresses moment. The university did not want to have this fight. I think they were negotiating in good faith to see if they could come to an accommodation that would satisfy some of the concerns, including some legitimate concerns about whether or not a wide enough range of viewpoints was being expressed on campus. So I think they were negotiating in good faith.
The one advantage in the government's letter was it was so extreme that we had really no choice at this point. And I think the university now is going to go about its business. It's going to continue to teach. It's going to continue to do the research we want to do. It's going to have to do it with fewer resources. And I think we're all aware of the fact that there's going to have to be some costs paid by the faculty, unfortunately by our students and staff as well. And I think we're willing to do that.
Ian Bremmer:
And Harvard is well-known, has been ever since I was a kid, as the leading higher education facility in the United States and in the world. Also has gotten itself part of the political tribal fighting going on and we saw the former president basically ousted under that pressure in part. What do you think Harvard needs to do to be seen not just as the place that you want to go to university, but also as a place that is above the political fray?
Stephen Walt:
Well, because universities are islands of thought they're never going to be completely separate from the political fray. But I strongly believe in institutional neutrality, that the university should not be taking public positions on political issues that do not directly affect the university. So yes, we do have a public position on say, student visas. That's important for us. But we don't necessarily have a public position and shouldn't have a public position on the war in Ukraine or what to do about the Middle East or whether affirmative action was a good thing or not. Gay marriage maybe would be one that you'd say. It's not something where the university takes position. Individual faculty can say what they want and should, and they can disagree and they will, and they do. But the president of the university, the board of trustees, et cetera, they don't take a particular institutional position. I very much agree with that.
That doesn't mean the university won't be political and it won't be politicized as well. I think first of all, we need to reaffirm that, that our business is doing independent research and doing teaching, that we are open to a wide range of opinions, that we care about rigor and honesty and research. We can disagree. You can even be wrong. Scholars are wrong all the time. But they can't be dishonest. So we have very high standards and we're not advancing a particular agenda other than the pursuit of truth for the benefit of society as a whole.
Ian Bremmer:
So broader point before we close this down. State of democracy in the United States right now. What worries you most and where do you see the most structural strength and resilience?
Stephen Walt:
What worries me the most is the inability of a set of institutions that I would've thought 20 years ago were pretty rock solid to impede what looks to me like an authoritarian grab for power.
Ian Bremmer:
Are you talking about the judiciary?
Stephen Walt:
I'm talking about in part the judiciary.
Ian Bremmer:
Or Congress?
Stephen Walt:
And Congress and the fact that they've been willing to essentially suspend most of their checks and balances roles in recent years.
I am encouraged, unfortunately, by the degree to which opinion seems to be shifting as to whether or not the direction of the Trump administration is the right course for the country.
Ian Bremmer:
Specifically on trade at this point?
Stephen Walt:
Trade, one, economic effects.
Ian Bremmer:
Yeah.
Stephen Walt:
I think people are starting to be uncomfortable with the idea that we're gutting the engine of scientific progress that has driven American technological and scientific leadership for decades. That that's going to have consequences sooner rather than later. And I think people are nervous, not everybody, but people are nervous about turning what have been some of our closest friends in the world into adversaries or enemies. I mean, when you pick a fight with Canada, the greatest bit of geopolitical good fortune the United States ever had, having Canada as a neighbor. When you turn them into an adversary, that's not going to end well.
Ian Bremmer:
Steve Walt, always good to see you, my friend.
Stephen Walt:
Nice to see you. Take care.
Gaza protests highlight the need to build cooperation vs. confrontation, says Eboo Patel
It’s time for college students to rethink how they protest, says Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith America, a nonprofit that works with hundreds of campuses to foster healthier dialogue. In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer for the latest episode of GZERO World, Patel criticizes the confrontational culture on campuses, urging a shift from romanticizing conflict to embracing cooperation. He challenges the dichotomy of oppressors and oppressed, advocating for a more nuanced approach to diversity that resembles a potluck of ideas.
“We absolutely need to change the default setting on campuses from confrontation is romanticized to cooperation is the norm."
College campuses are actually the perfect venues for this kind of dialogue, Patel says, and professors and administrators can leverage their intellectual backgrounds to foster the kinds of productive dialogue that students need more than ever. Everything else, like demanding the disbanding of campus police, Patel says, is nothing more than a distraction.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- US inching away from Israel on Gaza war ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Who is responsible for Gaza's enormous civilian death toll? ›
- Chaos erupts overnight on US campuses. What’s next for student protesters? ›
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Covering Columbia's campus protests as a student and GZERO reporter
The past few weeks of student protests, counter-protests, and police activity at Columbia have been the tensest moments the University has seen in over 50 years. What’s it like to be a student and graduating senior during this historic moment?
When GZERO writer Riley Callanan began her senior year at Barnard, the women’s college within Columbia, she never expected it would end this way: thousands of student protesters, an encampment and takeover of an administrative building, the attention of the national news media, armed police officers swarming campus, and, ultimately, a canceled graduation ceremony. Now, as she tells colleague Alex Kliment on GZERO World, instead of senior galas and grad parties, Columbia students are having intense debates over the Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism, and free speech.
Callanan has been documenting it all—from the early protests on the academic quad to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson delivering on her library steps. GZERO correspondent Alex Kliment sat down with Callahan to hear more about what it’s like to be a college senior in 2024, what she saw during the protests, and what happens after graduation.“We absolutely need to change the default setting on campuses from confrontation is romanticized to cooperation is the norm."
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- With summer looming, where will student protesters turn next? ›
- From the inside out: Is Columbia’s campus crisis calming down? ›
- Chaos on Campus: Speaker Johnson's visit fans the flames at Columbia as protests go global ›
- Columbia & Yale protests: What campus protesters want ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Campus protests over Gaza: Now what?
Something is happening here—on college campuses, that is. But what do we make of protests that turn violent, like what we saw at UCLA or even some of the Columbia conflicts? In a wide-ranging interview with Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, Eboo Patel, founder of the nonprofit Interfaith America, talks about his work on hundreds of college campuses to find common ground. His core message is simple: "Cooperation is better than division."
Patel advocates for a shift in focus from confrontation to cooperation on campuses, suggesting that universities should foster environments of civil discourse. He proposes initiatives like teach-ins and dialogues to explore constructive solutions to complex issues. "I think the problem here, the thing that universities could control, which I think that they have gotten wrong in many cases over the course of the past five years, is the default mode has been set to confrontation, not cooperation."
It's true that finding common ground can be easier said than done when tensions are high. But as Patel points out, the majority of college campuses have been able to debate the Israel-Gaza war without the kind of chaos or violence we've seen on certain campuses. "The media, for good reasons, covers planes that crash and not planes that land," Patel explains.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
- From the inside out: Is Columbia’s campus crisis calming down? ›
- Crisis at Columbia: Protests and arrests bring chaos to campus ›
- Chaos erupts overnight on US campuses. What’s next for student protesters? ›
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
Why campus protests worsen divisions, and how to mediate: Advice from Eboo Patel
Listen: On this episode of the GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer, Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith America, advocates for cooperation over division on college campuses in response to protests, highlighting the need for civil discourse and pointing out that despite some instances of violence, most campuses engage in constructive dialogue.
Whether you are for or against the protests happening across the country, one thing is clear: They've caught the world's attention. Some have escalated into violence, as seen at UCLA, Texas, and Columbia University. On the podcast, Patel discusses his efforts on over 600 college campuses to foster unity. His central message: "Cooperation is better than division."
Patel emphasizes the need for universities to shift their focus from confrontation to cooperation, advocating for environments that promote civil discourse. He suggests initiatives such as teach-ins and dialogues to explore constructive solutions to complex issues. Patel criticizes the default mode of many universities. "I think the problem here, the thing that universities could control, which I think that they have gotten wrong in many cases over the course of the past five years, is the default mode has been set to confrontation, not cooperation."
While it may be challenging to find common ground, Patel highlights that the majority of college campuses have managed to engage in debates about the Israel-Gaza conflict without resorting to chaos or violence. He explains, "The media, for good reasons, covers planes that crash and not planes that land." This suggests that the instances of violence and chaos are outliers and that civil discourse is still prevalent on many campuses.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
- How campus protests could influence the US presidential election ›
- Columbia & Yale protests: What campus protesters want ›
- Campus protests spill over into US political sphere ›
- Chaos erupts overnight on US campuses. What’s next for student protesters? ›
- Crisis at Columbia: Protests and arrests bring chaos to campus ›
Ian Explains: Will the Gaza campus protests work?
Have the student protests worked? College campuses nationwide have become protest hubs, echoing past movements demanding change. From Columbia to UCLA, students are pitching tents, occupying buildings, and clashing with police over Israel's actions in Gaza. The core demand: divestment from Israel. Whether it's cutting ties with Israeli donors or businesses, students are risking penalties to be heard, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
This activism mirrors the 1968 protests at Columbia, which targeted US involvement in Vietnam. Then, as now, divestment was a central demand, albeit from different sources. Some progress has been made; Brown and Northwestern students have reached agreements with administrators. Worldwide, youth are voicing discontent over Gaza.
However, not all support these protests. Some lament another disrupted commencement, while Jewish students feel marginalized and threatened. Can these efforts change US policy? President Biden's recent remarks suggest otherwise, as does Congress' recent passing of $15 billion in military aid for Israel. But Biden needs Gen Z's support for reelection. They have leverage, and they know it.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and online.
Police arrest Emory economics professor Caroline Fohlin during a rally in which Pro-Palestinian protestors set up an encampment at the Emory Campus in Atlanta, on Thursday, April 25, 2024.
Southern campus unrest: 2024 election foreshadowing?
Pro-Palestinian student demonstrations and encampments have popped up at dozens of US universities in recent weeks. Columbia University – where protests began – and other elite schools in the Northeast have grabbed plenty of headlines, but where they are facing the harshest pushback – and could ultimately help Republicans win back the White House – is in the South.
Last Thursday at Georgia’s Emory University, officers used tasers and pepper balls to arrest 40 peaceful protesters who had set up an encampment on the school’s football fields just hours before. Afterward, Georgia state Rep. Mike Collins, posted on X: “Not sure what y’all are doing up north, but we don’t give them the time to encamp. Tazers set to stun!”
As word got out that protesters were planning to occupy a lawn on UT Austin’s campus last Wednesday, Gov. Greg Abbott immediately called in more than 100 state troopers. Police pushed students to the ground and arrested 57 of them on trespassing charges. Then, on Monday, 100 more were detained during a second protest. All those arrested have been ordered released due to “deficiencies in probable cause,” but Abbott showed no remorse, posting “these protesters belong in jail,” on X.
That same pattern, of protests quickly resulting in mass arrests to the applause of Republicans, has been seen from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to Virginia Tech. And while politicians on both sides of the aisle have criticized instances of antisemitism at the protests, the GOP is seizing on the demonstrations as symbols of leftist chaos.
As Donald Trump’s trial opened last week, a cast of right-wing provocateurs showed up outside the court in New York City to protest. But as the protests at Columbia erupted, those same Republican figures – including far-right activist Laura Loomer – headed uptown to oppose the demonstrations outside the university gates. Prominent Republicans like House Speaker Mike Johnson, Reps. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, and Mike Lawler, of New York, joined them on campus to condemn the protests and announce their bill, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, mandating that the Education Department adopt the broad definition of antisemitism and enforce anti-discrimination laws. The bill passed in the House on Wednesday.
“Republicans are gleefully positioning themselves to be the 'law and order' party this November,” says Eurasia Group’s US Managing Director Jon Lieber. “I would expect that any continued demonstrations on liberal college campuses when schools come back in the fall will be used in service of a narrative that Democrats are the party of chaos.”
And for Democrats, the students demonstrating are a physical embodiment of the way their base has been divided by the war in Gaza. They draw attention to the fact that many young and progressive voters disapprove of Joe Biden’s continued support of Israel in a conflict that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Two students occupying Hamilton Hall on Columbia's Campus
With summer looming, where will student protesters turn next?
What are those demands? The movement aims to isolate and put pressure on Israel to stop its bombing campaign in Gaza by forcing universities to divest from companies with ties to the Jewish state or that profit from the war. While protests on US campuses are being driven by the war in Gaza, their impact is transcending the conflict. Some of the demonstrations have featured antisemitic and intimidating chants and posters, while politicians on both sides of the aisle have made visits to college campuses to either support or condemn them.
Schools are striving to restore order before commencement season to avoid becoming the next University of Southern California, which canceled its main graduation ceremony after arresting more than 90 students last week.
But protesters aren’t concerned about graduation ceremonies. At Columbia, a new chant, “no commencement until divestment,” can be heard from the occupied building. Ali, a senior at The New School who was involved in the takeover of Parsons and requested anonymity, laughed when I asked if he was worried about missing graduation. “We are all pushing as hard as we can to get divestment before the end of school. That’s the priority,” he said.
He was optimistic they would succeed, at least on his campus. But the overarching goal of getting the largest university endowments to divest from Israel is certainly not going to happen before students go home for summer.
So what comes next?
Hamilton Hall, the building Columbia protesters occupied last night, was also taken over in the spring of 1968 during the Vietnam War. Demonstrators back then went home for the summer, only to resurface in the thousands at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and, long story short: Things got ugly. The gathering erupted into violence, leading to the activation of the National Guard and the arrest of hundreds of protesters.
This August, the DNC is also in Chicago, so could history repeat itself? When I asked students whether the movement would shift from university endowments to political events, the question took them off-guard.
“People aren’t really talking about what this is going to look like during the 2024 election," said Ali. “But what I do know is that people in this movement aren’t committed to voting for a certain party.” His statement echoed the disillusionment with political parties that I have heard again and again from student protesters.
“I don’t know how Joe Biden doesn’t realize he’s lost us,” said Julia Ye, a senior at NYU.
Cornel West and Jill Stein, two left-leaning third-party candidates, have both visited the Columbia University encampment in hopes of picking up the liberal youth vote. But it remains to be seen whether students will vote for either of them, especially if doing so makes it more likely that Donald Trump wins.
What’s clear is that students are confident the movement isn’t going on vacation. “Right now, all our focus is on university divestment,” said Ye, “but this energy isn’t going anywhere. It will just take a different shape over the summer.”
Students reported that throughout this year of university protests, they have seen their activist networks strengthen and expand, especially between schools. They have coordinated sending excess food donations between encampments in New York City, live-streamed the programming from different encampments across the country on their own, and been catalyzed by each other’s encounters with law enforcement.
“It was cool to see us moving in sync with the Columbia protests yesterday, even if it wasn’t officially organized,” said Gabriella, another senior at The New School who requested anonymity. “We are all watching each other on social media. We all want the same things. This movement is exploding, whether one person is calling for it to or not.”