Isa Cruz

One long-standing conception of academia is that of the ivory tower: an elite scholarly enterprise focused solely on the pursuit of truth and knowledge, removed from worldly concerns and troubles. For decades, however, many academics have sought to challenge that notion, intentionally focusing their research on social and economic disparities, popular culture and underground or alternative movements, as well as making an active effort to communicate the relevance of their work to current events or political issues.

And in recent years, scholarly work itself has been polemicized by those outside academia, with various groups calling into question the veracity and political motivations behind college curricula and entire academic disciplines. In just the last month, President Donald Trump’s executive orders regarding diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and scientific funding have caused uproar in the academic community.

For many Bowdoin professors, these recent headlines—which have made an explicit connection between the current political climate and its influence on academic work—speak to the ever-present relationship between politics and higher education.

While he does not see his scholarship as political in nature, Associate Professor of Africana Studies and History Brian Purnell argued that the question of how to deal with politics within academia is persistent.

“There’s always a tension that exists [for] research academics between responding to contemporary issues and adhering to their disciplinary—or interdisciplinary—methodological ethics and conventions, and each individual scholar will respond to it differently,” Purnell said.

Noting that some academics will ethically defend their work through their compliance with methodological guidelines and others through relevance to contemporary issues or “activism,” Purnell added that he doesn’t necessarily see this friction as a problem.

“I personally don’t see that tension as irreconcilable or as inherently negative,” Purnell said. “My thought is always, if you identify as an activist and you’re transparent about your activism … or, conversely, if you eschew activism, then I can accept or reject your work based on the soundness of your methods and conclusions.”

While he referenced periods in U.S. history where academics suffered serious career consequences as a result of their political beliefs, such as the McCarthy era of “blacklisting” in the 1950s, Purnell stated that he hadn’t heard of overt silencing of scholars in such a way during his 30-year tenure as a professional historian.

“I’ve seen and heard of people who hold unorthodox opinions or approaches perhaps be ostracized or pilloried in reviews or talked about at a conference, but I’ve never seen someone being fired or threatened professionally because of a politicization of their discipline,” Purnell said.

Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Danielle Dube, however, emphasized that in her career, she has frequently seen politics or political concerns play a role in making institutional decisions like grant funding or academic leadership.

“For a long time, I thought the work that I do isn’t political, but I would say I have an increasing awareness of how the research work is political in nature. [In regards to] grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF), not all areas of chemistry or biochemistry research are looked upon with equal favorability,” Dube said. “What work is recognized as being really impactful and valued versus what work isn’t—that’s actually political in nature, in some ways.”

Dube also spoke to the role that identity characteristics—namely, gender—can play in determining what research is foregrounded.

“There have been many times where I’ve been the only woman in the room, or one of a very small number of women in the room with a lot of male researchers. The ways in which particular [grant] applications are perceived and discussed can feel really different to me,” Dube added. “Maybe my point is that the societal and sociological structures that make up our environment absolutely are at play in … who gets the benefit of the doubt and whose work gets scrutinized.”

Associate Professor of Mathematics Jack O’Brien also highlighted the inherently political nature of national academic organizations, such as the NSF, and the way that the political influence can be felt in the way funding decisions are made.

“The NSF, which directs a good chunk of basic research,… makes political choices all the time,” O’Brien said. “Scientists … want to put the money towards the things they don’t know the most, whereas there are administrative priorities [that focus on something] like electronic health records. And it’s this weird proxy for corporatism.”

O’Brien also offered a broader commentary on the ways that what he sees as the inherent political qualities of mathematics are often ignored and kept outside of coursework in the field.

“It’s interesting because [math] is political, ideological—not in the sense of left or right, but in the sense of how do we frame what questions we ask…. The mathematics community has this long tradition of not looking at what their problems really mean,” O’Brien said. “Math has been [used as] this tool of brutal asymmetric violence and surveillance and suppression of democratic movements. But it’s been scrubbed from the classroom.”

As a teacher, O’Brien said that the politics that shape his discipline result in students having a confined view of the potential applications of math.

“What this does is it deadens the space of imagination. When I talk to students, they’re like ‘I feel like math could be so much more,’” O’Brien said. “And I [say], yeah, that’s totally possible—you have been taught not to see it.”

Professor of Physics and Astronomy Mark Battle, whose work focuses largely on the carbon cycle, offered his perspective on the way in which climate change research has been politicized both inside and outside of academia.

“What I do is science, and there isn’t a lot of opinion or personal bias involved…. The problem is those conclusions [that are made] have implications that are inconvenient for people and challenge their worldview in some cases, and so they push back in subjective and political terms,” Battle said.

Battle also emphasized the many ways that different climate scientists have handled the issue, with some choosing to take their scientific work into the world of policy and politics, and others staying true to their identity as a scientist. As an example, he referenced the approach of Nobel Prize-winning atmospheric chemist Susan Solomon.

“She was extremely careful to draw the line between a scientific conclusion and a policy recommendation,” Battle said. “She felt that the potential positive impact [of giving policy advice] was not worth opening [the possibility] of being told that she wasn’t being objective in her science.”

Battle also made reference to the current changes undergoing in the grant funding process under the Trump administration, saying that scientists may refrain from using language related to DEI and climate change in proposals for NSF funding.

“I imagine that things are going to change…. I already got a directive from the Department of Energy saying if you have a DEI component in [your proposal], that will not be used as an evaluative criteria for your funding,” Battle added.

In an email to the Orient, Professor of History Patrick Rael talked about facing similar challenges in the growing politicization of his work as a scholar of African American history.

“The last half-century has witnessed an enormous effort to unfairly weaken the credibility of academic disciplines by those who do not like the conclusions they deliver. I believe that as citizens in a democratic republic, we must understand this as an attempt to deprive us of the capacity to make our own choices,” Rael wrote. “History that challenges the status quo is often called ‘political,’ while history upholding existing norms is said to be neutral.”

Rael expanded on this point, highlighting the fact that the very existence of academic knowledge —especially in the humanities—has been broadly derided by various conservative political groups in recent years.

“More and more, we see arguments in the media claiming that expertise and education are somehow inherently leftist, and so [they] must be rejected. But if that is so, what does that make those who are determined to deny the public the benefits of expertise and education?” Rael added.

While Assistant Professor of Anthropology Shreyas Sreenath emphasized the inherently political quality of academic work, he also rejected the idea that academics necessarily intend to forward a certain set of beliefs.

“We’re not in the business of brainwashing people,” Sreenath said. “We’re in the business of discussing serious research and thinking, and that entails a certain amount of mutual respect and trust and the capacity to change your views based on a conversation with somebody else.”

Sreenath advocated for a broader definition of the word “political,” citing the word’s original significance in ancient Greece—the struggle of learning how to live together with people of different social classes and beliefs.

“We kind of forget that basic meaning of politics, and we assume that somehow we [in academia] can exist outside of this space, which I think is kind of a fiction…. [Academia] is a politicized space, but so is every other institution in the country,” Sreenath said.

In closing, Sreenath added that through this lens, politics doesn’t have to be seen as inherently a liability for scholarship.

“Politics is not simply about power. It’s also about possibility. It is about realizing that possibility through serious study.”