Tim van Opijnen | In the White House, rules only apply to “losers”
American universities can receive additional funding for research and education — but only if every department is now deemed “idea-diverse.” That may sound fine, writes columnist Tim van Opijnen, but it isn’t. “Under the guise of ideological diversity, the government is gaining control over academic thought, and a Republican re-election creeps a little closer.”
I don’t take losing very well. As a little kid, my parents and sister eventually refused to play games with me. There was always a debate about how to interpret the rules, followed by game pieces decorating the carpet. As a teenager, I was an avid athlete, and losing felt absolutely terrible.
These days, losing looks like rejected grant applications, declined manuscripts, and failed projects. While “losing” is still unpleasant, I’ve learned to handle it better. I’ve come to appreciate that rules and referees are essential to keeping a process as fair as possible. But sometimes I still fantasize about how great it would be if I could reinterpret the rules and have the referees on my side. Then I’d never be a “loser” again — and I’d probably have a Nobel Prize sitting on my desk.
I suspect the president of the United States has similar fantasies. A few weeks ago, he sent a letter to “friendly” private universities, offering billions in extra funding for research and education — but only on the condition that they comply with a set of new rules.
Create confusion
The most striking of the new requirements is that every department must now be “idea diverse”. At first glance, that sounds perfectly fine — after all, a university should challenge your intellect to approach any topic without bias, from all possible angles, in order to reach a well-founded conclusion. But here’s the catch: by framing the requirement this way, it implies that universities currently lack independence and that everything is predetermined. This has become the president’s tried-and-true strategy — cast doubt on the truth, sow confusion, and the real objective fades from view.
But what, then, is his true aim? What’s the bigger goal? During a dinner in downtown Boston with a few colleagues last week, we speculated about what “ideological diversity” would mean in our own field — infectious diseases. The cynical conclusion came quickly: we’d have to welcome the current Secretary of Health, “RFK Jr.” — someone whose dangerous anti-vaccine positions and pseudoscientific theories about paracetamol and autism would be the perfect, absurd embodiment of that requirement. The larger goal is also becoming increasingly clear. When it comes to political leanings within universities, the vast majority support the Democrats. In the last election, the president received 1.5 percent more votes than Kamala Harris — and by gaining control over “academic thought” under the guise of ideological diversity, a Republican re-election creeps closer bit by bit.
Discrimination
Far-fetched? Not when you consider that several Republican-led states are redrawing electoral districts in such a way that a Democrat no longer stands a chance. Add to that last week’s arguments before the Supreme Court to abolish Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the key federal protection against racially discriminatory voting practices. When the law was signed in 1965, it was a major victory for Black Americans, who had long faced discrimination when trying to vote, such as literacy tests and special taxes.
The president of the United States clearly has a dream: a Nobel Peace Prize, control over public thought, and a third — illegal — term in office. Unlike me, the president has concluded that he can ignore and rewrite the rules — and that he’s got the referees in his pocket, too. While his hard core of supporters remains loyal, public opinion appears to be turning against him, fueled by an endless stream of controversies: masked federal agents abducting citizens from the streets, the silencing of critics, and the deployment of the National Guard to “leftist” cities.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut put the strategy succinctly: shrink the space for opposition so much that the opponent — even with elections — can never win again. The president is pulling out all the stops to secure the midterm elections of November 2026. He’s not just rewriting the rules of the game — he’s abolishing the entire game for anyone not on his team. Because in his world, only one rule matters: losing is for losers.
