Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

A Small College Faculty Takes Unprecedented Action to Stand Up for Democracy

Opinion

An illustration of a megaphone with a speech bubble.

As threats to democracy rise, Amherst College faculty show how collective action and courage within institutions can defend freedom and the rule of law.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

In the Trump era, most of the attention on higher education has focused on presidents and what they will or won't do to protect their institutions from threats to academic freedom and institutional independence. Leadership matters, but it's time for the rank-and-file in the academy — and in business and other institutions — to fulfill their own obligations to protect democracy.

With a few exceptions, neither the rank and file nor their leaders in the academy have stood up for democracy and the rule of law in the world beyond their organizations. They have had little to say about the administration’s mounting lawlessness, corruption, and abuse of power.


Similarly, many US leaders in business and religion have chosen to remain silent and keep their heads down in the hope of protecting the organizations they lead. At the same time, many employees, congregations, and faculties at universities also have not taken collective action to express their own views about what is happening in Trump’s America.

On Friday, the faculty at Amherst College, a New England liberal arts college where I teach, broke the pattern. It voted overwhelmingly to speak out.

It endorsed the following statement: “Resolved that, in light of escalating threats to democracy and the rights of citizens and non-citizens in the United States, the faculty of Amherst College affirms its belief that those threats endanger our educational mission. We join with others who are also speaking out, defending freedom, democracy, and the rights of all, regardless of their political allegiances, religious, gender, and racial identities, or immigration status.”

The Amherst faculty did not do so to circumvent the college’s president, Michael Elliott, who is widely admired for his clear-headed and steady leadership, but rather to add its voice in the service of resistance to authoritarianism. Others should follow suit and speak out loudly and clearly in defense of democracy and the rights of all.

We’ve seen a few glimmers of this “opposition from below.” For example, members of some faith communities have taken a stand as congregations.

Some lawyers have opposed deals their firms made with Trump, and faculty at some universities have asked their leaders not to cave in to him. Labor unions have publicly opposed the president’s arbitrary terminations of federal employees.

Again, all that is to be admired, but it has largely focused on the internal affairs of those places rather than the broader political context.

One might counter that the broader resistance has happened in demonstrations, protests, letters to the editor, and the like. Yes, of course, millions of people have acted as individuals protesting both the administration’s policies and its dictatorial bent.

Those actions need to continue, but they will be all the stronger if supplemented by solidarity and collective action within our workplaces, schools, professional communities, and elsewhere.

Now is our moment.

There will be many reasons offered against those groups taking a stand. Some will say, “That’s not why I come to or join those groups.”

But as the Amherst faculty understood, we cannot do our work in the way it should be done if freedom and democracy are lost. The same is true for businesses that can thrive where the rule of law is respected or cultural institutions that do not want 6o become arms of the government.

Critics will say that passing resolutions like the one from the Amherst faculty will not make a difference. In truth, we can’t know for sure if it will work, though we can be confident that silence will not work.

We can’t know whether standing up for democracy will bring wrath from a vengeful administration. It might.

All of those who oppose the Trump Administration have reasons to be afraid. As Marc Elias, the lawyer and prominent anti-Trump spokesperson, says, “Anyone who tells you that Donald Trump targets them and they don’t care, I think they’re just lying to you. I think anyone who says they’re not afraid is either a psychopath or a liar. Of course you’re afraid.”

The question is what we will do with our fear. Members of the Amherst faculty decided to speak through their fear.

Some might say that it is easy for academics at a privileged school, many of whom have job security, to do so. They might accuse us of “virtue signaling,” as if the resolution were all talk and no action.

However, what might once have been mere virtue signaling in a liberal democratic regime is resistance in a country that is losing its democracy and where the president is trying to ferret out “the enemy within.”

Drawing on the Hungarian experience, Michael Ignatieff, who was president of Central European University when Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, tried to expel it from Budapest, counsels the following strategy for American universities: “Mobilize your alumni networks. Enlist families whose children’s lives have been saved in your hospitals; reach out to companies that have commercialized your research, make contact with universities in red and blue states, public and private, who face the same threat.”

Network. Build alliances.

“Do it fast," he advises. "Make sure your campaign is not just about you, because that opens you to attack as a defender of privilege.”

That last bit of wisdom is crucial. We need to stand up not just to protect our own interests.

The Amherst faculty resolution respects the college’s policy on institutional statements, which allows them only on matters that affect its educational mission. But, it doesn’t stop there. It affirms our support for others “who are also speaking out, defending freedom, democracy, and the rights of all….”

That is because civil society can only be strong in the face of authoritarianism if we value the rights of others who are unlike us as much as we value our own rights, and if we act to defend shared values.

All of us need to speak out now, in every venue. We need to heed the advice of Marc Elias.

We should not wait for those who run our institutions to express outrage “that our government is run by people with no regard for the Constitution or the rule of law…that the sycophants who run this administration are loyal only to Trump…that so few people in positions of power are willing to speak up when they see abuses….”

It is time to remember what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote about the experience of life under German fascism. He memorably warned and the danger that if we don’t speak out now, there may be no one left to speak for us if we are targeted.

When our leaders speak out, they are to be cheered on, but all of us need to speak out as well, in every venue where our voices may be heard. The faculty of one small college has taken that admonition to heart and spoken in one voice, not just about themselves.

I hope that its example encourages other groups to do so as well.


Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.


Read More

Allies United Holds Cross‑Community Meetings to Protect Civil Rights Across Chicagoland

Fight For Today For A Better Tomorrow sign

Canva

Allies United Holds Cross‑Community Meetings to Protect Civil Rights Across Chicagoland

En español

Operation Midway Blitz outraged much of the Chicagoland community last September when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents raided neighborhoods, arrested thousands of individuals, and fatally shot Mexican immigrant Silverio Villegas González.

Witnessing these injustices across the country and in Chicago, two local coalitions came together last year to form Allies United, a Chicago-based coalition initially focused on responding to immigration raids, and now prioritizing protecting civil rights and building long-term cross‑community solidarity.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose
white red and blue textile

A Republic at 250: What History Teaches — and What Americans Must Choose

As the United States approaches both a consequential election cycle and the 250th anniversary of its founding, Americans stand at a crossroads the framers anticipated but hoped we would never reach: a moment when citizens must decide whether to allow the Republic to erode or restore it through vigilance. This is not about left or right. It is about whether we still share a common vision of the country we want to be — and whether we still believe in the same Republic.

The Founders never imagined “the land of the free” as a place dependent on benevolent leaders. They built a system in which the people — not the government — were the safeguards against overreach. James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers…in the same hands…may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” a reminder that freedom depends on restraint, not trust in any single individual. George Washington pledged that the Constitution would remain “the guide which I will never abandon,” signaling that loyalty to the Republic must always outweigh loyalty to any leader. These were not ceremonial lines. They were instructions — a blueprint for preventing institutional strain, polarization, and distrust we see today.

Keep ReadingShow less
A document representing the Declaration of Independence.

As trust in institutions declines, America’s 250th anniversary offers a chance to rediscover the civic lessons, leadership principles, and democratic values that sustain a republic.

Getty Images

America at 250: Will We Learn from Our Past?

We call it the American Experiment. Yet too often we celebrate it without studying it, invoke it without interrogating it, and inherit it without improving it. A republic designed to learn from experience cannot afford to ignore its own lessons from history.

As the United States approaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the country faces a deeper question than how to celebrate its founding. Do we still know how to learn from it?

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holding a sign in front of the U.S. capitol that reads, "We The People."

The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries

Getty Images

A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead

Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?

Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.

Keep ReadingShow less