we need an organizer mentality

posted on Feb 12, 2025

danny caballero

I am not a lawyer, a historian, or a political scientist. If this post repeats well-known information, I apologize, but send me links!

I am speaking here from my experience in higher education, including 12 years as professor at Michigan State, and as a labor organizer for the Union of Tenure System Faculty for the last 4 years. My views below do represent either MSU or UTSF, nor do these views represent any of the organizations with which I am affiliated.

The Trump administration has indicated that the NIH will limit the amount of money that universities receive from grants. Institutions use these dollars to support the research mission across each campus not just the work of the individual project.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about, that’s ok. Read my colleague’s (Prof. Mike Wiser) short thread on the topic. He even has a TL;DR right here at the top.

Since I have way more non-academic followers than I ever would have imagined: a short explainer. TL;DR: Substantially cutting indirect costs will either mean raising tuition and fees, or laying off a bunch of mid- and low-salary staff and students.

— Mike Wiser (@drmikewiser.bsky.social) 2025-02-08T15:31:46.331Z

I won’t repeat Mike’s excellent explanation, but will present it later in terms of an organizer’s approach to the problem.

an attack on higher education

Prior to becoming president, Trump and his surrogates attacked US higher education in a variety of ways. This Al-Jazeera article provides a good summary of the attacks prior to the inauguration.

Those of us who took him at his word during the election anticipated that he would follow through on his promises. He has given us no reason to doubt that if he intends to do something, he will do it, even if it appears to be illegal or unconstitutional.

The argument to justify this seemingly illegal and unconstitutional exercise of power is that the president and his people are seeking out waste and fraud.

First, the NIH indirect costs paid to universities is a laughable amount of money in the grand scheme of the US budget. The amount of funding that is alloted to these programs is a tiny fraction of the federal budget, which is vastly explained by social security, health care/medicare, and defense spending. Moreover, if the billionaire class and corporations paid their fair share, we would have more than enough money to fund these programs. This is not about saving boatloads of money.

The second argument is that the universities are not using the money correctly. But, I can tell you the level of auditing and reporting that is needed to get and maintain these grants is immense. There are numerous checks and balances in place to ensure that the money is being used correctly. We have entire staff at each college that is devoted to ensuring our compliance with federal law and any grant policies. There is no vast conspiracy by universities to defraud the federal government.

In fact, our federally funded research has become increasingly transparent, open, and collaborative. During the last administration, the federal government mandated open access to research papers` ensuring the public can gain access to the data, methods, and results of research. This effort has also tried to make more transparent how each of our tax dollars are working. This approach to research reporting is very important to the American experiment. By making our research openly available, we can continue to make the argument to the American people that their hard earned money is used to support tangible public goods. I would like us to go further and require that all research be open access.

universities respond

Since the freeze on federal grants and loans was announced and with the recent NIH announcement, universities have gone through their options; they have started to make decisions about handling a shortfall, and in some cases started litigation to prevent the policies from being implemented. Judges have blocked some policies from being implemented, but the judicial order to stop federal freeze is being defied by the administration at present.

This is a huge problem.

As you can read from Mike’s thread, an implementation of the NIH policy alone will reduce staff who support the research mission, reduce the number of students who can be supported in doing research, and raise tuition for students.

To be clear, all bad things.

The balance between each of these outcomes is surely what our universities are trying to figure out.

I know there are people at MSU (and elsewhere) who are working hard to mitigate the impact of these policies; folks are developing plans for the many potential outcomes that might stem from this chaotic approach; and some staff are working to inform and support those of us who are impacted by these decisions. I also know that there are many people working on these issues who cannot speak out because of the nature of their work. I am grateful for their work and I understand the constraints they are under.

the executive mentality

The actions that universities have taken use an executive frame. Their approach uses the tools of the university to respond. It is an approach that involves forming rapid response teams, hiring consultants, activating lawyers, and developing multiple plans to address the problem. It is a top-down approach that is designed to protect the institution from harm. It is focused on the institution’s survival – securing the resources that the university needs to continue to operate.

I get that approach.

If we don’t secure the bag, we will not continue to do the research that is needed in the world. We won’t be able to support the students who need our institution the most. We will lose talented people who we have invested in and who are invested in the institution.

I agree with the end goal of the executive approach, but it is not enough.

The executive approach is only accessible to those who are in the room when the decisions are made; those with substantial power inside the university - your presidents, your provosts, your boards. It is also a short-term approach that is designed to address the immediate problem. It is not an approach that is designed to address the root cause of the problem.

But it’s also not clear it will be effective. The president and his administration seem very willing to continue to defy court orders and to continue to implement policies that are deemed illegal and unconstitutional.

I worry about the Andrew Jackson of it all – “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

Also, fuck that guy.

a public problem

Why should anyone care if a research-intensive university has to raise tuition or cut staff if it means lower taxes?

Dismissing the appeal of lower taxes for working families is a mistake; do that at your own risk (even if it is a false promise).

Most Americans don’t have a college degree. Most Americans who go to college don’t attend a research-intensive university. Most Americans who attend a research-intensive university don’t do research.

Maybe it’s obvious where I’m going with this.

The executive mentality lives inside a university. It speaks the economic language of the university using academic shibboleths. It talks in terms of indirect costs, overhead return, and fringe benefits. It focuses on limiting legal exposure while defending the rights of the institution and its employees and students. It focuses on securing the bag. The executive approach uses a language that is not accessible to most Americans; it argues in ideas that are concrete to us, but abstract to our friends and families. This approach underscores the aspects of higher education the public hates – increased costs of a college education and the perception of waste and fraud in universities.

But let’s step down from our ivory towers for a moment and ask a few questions:

Why would my dad, the baker, care about a freeze in federal funding to MSU? He lives in Texas and did not attend college.

My brother works for a bicycle shop as a mechanic. Why would he think about the NIH policy? He has completed his high school degree and has built a life for himself in Colorado.

Why might one my best friends, who is an HVAC technician, care about cutting indirect costs of research? His training was on the job and he has a family to support.

The answer is that they don’t.

They have their lives to live. They have family and friends to care for. They have bills to pay. They have their own problems to solve.

Some of these folks, including members of my family, support the president’s actions because they believe what he says. They believe that there’s rampant waste and fraud because the administration says there is. They think these cuts will put money back in their paychecks. They don’t think that universities are using their money correctly. How can you fault their thinking when what they see is that tuition continues to rise year over year. They don’t see how the research that we do has materially improved life for them. They have many other things to worry about.

In many ways, they are right about higher education.

We have failed to make the case to most Americans that the work we do is important and has been beneficial to society. Absent a reason to set aside their busy lives and have that conversation, we will lose the support of the public and these institutions will continue to erode. The executive mentality is not designed to address this problem; it cannot engage in open conversation because it is necessarily reactionary, tactical, and defensive.

an organizer’s mentality

I’ve organized with the Union of Tenure System Faculty for the last 4 years. Through that work, I’ve met with many of faculty across our campus. I knocked on doors, made calls, and worked to build relationships with my colleagues as we have pushed towards a common goal – the recognition of our union.

I don’t agree with my colleagues on everything - the faculty are not a monolith, but I do know that they care about their work, their students, and our institution.

This work has taught me a lot about solidarity – about how much I share in common with colleagues across my campus. It’s taught me that we are much stronger when we share a common goal, when we openly discuss the problems we face, and when we work together to address those problems. Organizing has demonstrated to me that solutions don’t have to be top-down; they can develop from the ground up.

It is this frame that I think most of us can adopt to address the problems we face.

Organizing is a long-term approach. Organizing is about building power with people who are being impacted. It can be designed to inform people, to build relationships with them, and to develop plans to address major problems. Organizing can be done with anyone, anywhere, and at any time. Organizing is accessible to everyone.

Good organizing is open, transparent, and grass-root democratic.

What we must remember is that all of us are impacted by these policies. The cancellation of US AID programs will impact US farmers who sell their food to the world through these programs. The reduction of NIH funding will impact the health of all Americans. The freeze on federal grants will impact the ability of universities to educate the next generation of Americans, who start businesses, teach our children, and care for our sick. The implications are dire and widespread.

what can we do?

By taking an organizer’s frame, we can start to build power with those who are going to be impacted by these policies. Openly sharing information about the policies and their implications is a good first step. But, more importantly is building relationships with those who will be impacted downstream.

It’s important to talk to my Dad about how the freeze on NIH funding can impact his life. God forbid he develop a disease that could be cured by research that is no longer funded. When people experience hardships in their health, when the disease they develop is not curable, they will be looking for answers. They will ask, “is there anything more you can do, doctor?” And the answer might be, “well there was, but the president cut funding to the NIH.”

It’s important to talk to my friend about the freeze on federal grants. He has children who aspire to go to college and the support of low-interest loans and grants are the only way they can afford it. Without these programs, children like his will have their options and access to education limited – something that we, as a country, have worked hard to expand.

It’s important to talk to my brother about the freeze on US AID programs and tariffs on China. He works in the bicycle business and the costs of bicycles will rise because of these policies. His company will have to pass those costs on to the consumer, which will make it harder for people to buy bikes. And then my brother, one of the most passionate cyclists I know, will be confronted with his boss’s choice: raise prices or cut staff. And the choice is probably both.

There’s knock on effects to organizing that are important. By supporting my family in understanding the implications of these policies, they can share that information with their circle of friends and family. They can inform their folks about the impacts, they can explain why these are not good ideas, and they can empower others to learn and take action.

Organizing is slow, hard work. It’s not easy and it’s not attractive work. But it is necessary work.

We must build power with those we love and care about. We must work to destroy the mythos of the ivory tower of academia and work alongside those who are going to be impacted. We cannot demonize them for the beliefs they hold now; we can work to inform them about the implications of these policies.

I don’t expect my dad, my brother, or my friend to share my views. Believe me, I’m on the fringe of my family’s political beliefs. But I do expect them to understand the implications of these policies and to make informed decisions about them. I expect them to be able to make a decision that is in their best interest and the best interest of their family.

And the executive mentality cannot do that.

We must organize.