I can't quite stop thinking about this op-ed written by two Harvard undergrads, and this is a measure of high-praise, yes? Having written provocatively, where your words are still ringing in your reader's head days after the fact, is an accomplishment. Yet, I can't help but disagree with their perspective.
Their core argument is that academics ought not to leave the United States for greener pastures in other countries (specifically, Canada, but realistically, Europe and China as well), because of their moral duty to be teaching in the United States. They mention how scholars need to be defending the truth in "places where regard for it is shaky", citing the Snopes monkey trial in Tennessee on the teaching of evolution, and how other embattled scholars have stated that there is no "legal barrier" to their work. There are some pointed remarks to Timothy Snyder in particular, pointing out the "irony" of not practicing what he has preached in his book, On Tyranny, regarding those who "offer themselves without being asked".
I concur with the authors, that there is still legal freedom to be working on 'politically charged' topics in the United States, and that it is worthwhile to fight the good fight. But, my chief complaint about this argument is how it smacks of entitlement. Why should our academics stay at their current institutions for this work? Presumably, they can conduct the same research elsewhere - perhaps they could even accomplish greater breakthroughs when working in a country that is more hospitable and more equitable, right? Summon forth your empathy, for a moment, and take the scholar's perspective. We believe that each person has the freedom of choice, to work in the places with the greatest opportunity, to recruit the best students, and to study the most critical subjects. Why can't academics thus make the choice that their preferred institution is outside these particular ivy-covered gardens? Do you think that outside the US, they could not also be seeking the truth, or simply living a more peaceful life?
Look, I get it. I'm an academic (for now, at least), and it's been bittersweet to see talented scholars within my department choose to return to Europe, or otherwise depart America. Their reasons are varied - visa status, cost of living, sociopolitical climate, cultural norms, research funding - but many of these societal ills feel self-inflicted, especially from the US government. At the same time, our academic collaborators across the pond have been shrewd, taking advantage of this new political reality. Funding opportunities abroad have been especially generous recently, designed to lure scholars back home. On one hand, I'm incredibly happy for my peers, that they are receiving the recognition and funding that they have earned. I want them to live their best lives and have the star-studded careers of their dreams. On the other hand, I am a naturalized US citizen, and am committed to this beautiful country of ours. I yearn for my colleagues to stay here so that we can more easily conduct research together. Yet, I don't see this as a fair ask. How could I encourage my friends to take a gamble at something not in their best interest?
The op-ed authors mention about how "regardless of whether scholars stay or go, America will remain the most influential country in the world". I find this to be a dangerous presupposition. America is great, yes. But it's not always destined to be great, nor will it be easy for it to remain great. It takes hard work, determination, and the application of political will to foster an environment that continues to grow and nurture. Assumptions like these could lead to slow, gradual declines - if you hold that you have always been destined for greatness, you may not notice the cracks in the roads that pump the lifeblood of your nation. Rome did not fall in a day; Chinese dynasties cycled periodically, and more often than not, great powers crumble before they collapse.
I don't believe that finger-wagging is the productive course of action here. This type of moral argument invites ridicule, as if Harvard and Yale deserve these professors simply because they are Harvard and Yale, and that these students deserve the fruits of their labors. Instead, we should tackle both the big and the small. Within your classmates, invite international students and scholars to your circles, listening and learning from them. Understand the unique, intersectional challenges that they have to wrestle with, and provide them with support if you have particular insights into navigating the American landscape. Within your campus, keep arguing that what makes this country great is indeed its diversity and its immigrants. Point out that we are, truly, a nation of immigrants, and that our greatest thinkers, leaders, and researchers have often come from first- and second-generation new Americans. And throughout the nation, keep this great dream alive: that we are indeed a country that deserves to be great and mighty; that we do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard; that we believe that all men are created equal, deserving Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Remember that we can still build great and mighty things, and that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
Chunyang Ding, Yale College '19, is a quantum computing researcher at Stanford University. Originally from Shanghai, China, he was a Physics (Int.) major and Saybrook College alumnus. He can be reached at me (at) chunyangding.com