It’s no secret that the U.S. higher education system is enduring incredible challenges. Yet these challenges are not just due to Covid, or what is commonly referred to as “demographic changes.” There are politicians, news anchors, social commentators, well-organized and funded groups, and others who are directing their responses to the “racial reckoning” of 2020 to higher education, and with a particular kind of backlash. They have chosen to join and/or redouble their contributions to a movement with legacies in the segregationists of the Civil Rights era that is trying to sow public distrust in higher education; the more they “win” at this, the easier it is to take control over universities and colleges that teach genuine critical thinking and analysis. The perpetrators are targeting faculty through McCarthyist “professor watch lists” and banning the teaching of well-tread scholarly approaches to American discrimination and oppression.

I received my Ph.D. at the University of Florida, which was recently named a top 5 public institution. However, Florida is perhaps best known now for its governmental discrimination. It is currently all over the news in its targeting of faculty, staff, and students invested in accurately understanding racism and queer life. This includes the installment of an instigator of the anti-CRT moral panic, Christopher Rufo, as a Board of Trustees member at the New College of Florida, a small liberal arts school. Rufo proclaimed at Hillsdale College last year the need to “lay siege to our institutions,” including public universities. The silence from the top has been immense and legitimizes the movement. Importantly, the groundswell of local resistance is growing; students and alumni are resisting antisemitism, anti-Blackness, and queerphobia in myriad ways. Faculty see their jobs on the line but those of African American Studies especially are increasingly speaking out, while other parties and organizations are helping to push back in different ways.

Private small liberal arts institutions can offer these communities much more visible and constant protection and support than what we are currently seeing. “Avoiding the controversy” isn’t a viable option—silence is complicity.

Faculty are told to be “bold” and “innovative” in the classroom. What might it look like for our institutions to also be bold with and for us as we work to help students become just- and humane-centered global citizens?

Ursinus College boldly and proudly stood by me two years ago. As a historian, I am a co-host of the End of Sport podcast with sport sociologists Drs. Nathan Kalman-Lamb and Derek Silva. We interview athletes, fellow scholars, journalists, and advocates about discrimination, harm, and justice in sport. In early 2021 and before Name-Image-Likeness was passed, Dr. Kalman-Lamb and I were harassed by a then-sports radio show host and ESPN commentator. It began with a heated disagreement on Twitter about the labor position of college athletes. The media personality claimed that athletes “got paid” to be athletes through college scholarships. Dr. Kalman-Lamb and I cogently demonstrated that the NCAA and universities racially exploit athletes. As scholars, we relied on scholarly perspectives and facts from decades of rigorous research as well our expertise. When the media personality could not counter our evidence, he resorted to personal and sexist attacks.

We used our platform and communities to spread awareness and rally support; I publicly condemned his actions to a reporter at the IndyStar, but within days, I received emails and even a voice mail from people expressing their outrage at me.

In an article under review, Drs. Kalman-Lamb, Silva, and I contextualize this harassment within the landscape of attacks on higher education. We also offer suggestions about what we can do to prepare and handle such horrendous moments when they arise. One major suggestion concerns the role that our institutions can take to protect us. In that moment in 2021, I was scared. I was a pre-tenure faculty member. I knew my chair and department supported me. What I did not know was how the school would react when I notified them about it.

Ursinus decided to stand strong beside me. The various deans I emailed quickly sent me their support. The communications team worked with the administration to develop a statement shared both internally and via the institution’s social media accounts. They solicited my input. When I reread their public statement two years later, I am still proud of their words: “We unequivocally defend her interest in sharing those perspectives, which are grounded in research and reflection. They contribute to the national discourse in positive and actionable ways.”

The college could have chosen many other paths. It could have remained silent or distanced itself from me. Instead, it stood with me and championed my expertise and contributions to critical public discussions and policies. This is precisely the kind of bold action that institutions need to show in vocal and visible ways.

There are many possible paths for private liberal arts institutions to take in 2023. Providing a bold defense against discrimination and harassment is one of them, as scholars at this point are facing attacks daily. It can be seen as much-needed resistance at a time when most institutions and politicians not directly partaking in these efforts remain silent.

---

Johanna Mellis
Assistant Professor of History