In the first months of 2025, the newly inaugurated US government has been adopting a series of measures addressed – literally, through letters – to universities of all sizes and renown.
The main issue raised so far is the requirement that universities adopt controls on the profiles and activities of faculty, researchers, and students. The two main points raised in the letters sent by the government to universities are the control of manifestations identified as anti-Semitic and of scientific research and administrative and managerial practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
In other words, it would be the pro-Palestine demonstrations and the ideology Woke which, in the government's view, would be distorting the role of universities and threatening American values, including through the alleged subordination of merit to social and cultural issues.
According to letters that have been made public (you can see some of them here), universities would be failing to curb anti-Semitic demonstrations and misusing federal public funds with research and administrative measures related to DEI and ideology Woke (this is a term that has been used for a long time, but which has recently gained momentum and expanded its meaning to almost everything that refers to the defense of excluded and marginalized groups, normally attributed to left-wing movements).
The universities’ response letters varied in content. Some gave in to the demands in exchange for continued federal funding; others, highlighting Harvard’s actions, contested and refuted the government’s demands.
Um poster of April 22, 2025, signed by more than 340 presidents, vice-chancellors and other administrative positions held at American universities, rejects intervention in university governance, but calls for negotiation. One excerpt, in my opinion, captures the spirit of the manifesto:
“We are open to constructive reforms and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion into the lives of those who study, live, and work on our campuses. We will always pursue effective and fair financial practices, but we reject the coercive use of public research funding.”
It is unclear what “legitimate government oversight” means. The last part of the manifesto gives a clue: “On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work in and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that strengthens our universities and serves our republic.”
They raise a red and a yellow flag at the same time. The yellow flag can also be interpreted as white. The government has gone after the universities and they are beginning to reject the attacks, but also to offer negotiations.
We do not know, and no one can say, what the consequences of this change in the government's stance toward universities will be. It may have a big impact, or it may have little. But I believe that some changes will happen. It is clear from the abundant daily news on this subject that the underlying issue is a malaise on the part of the American population and its political representatives toward universities – and what they represent. Admiration and rejection are moving apart and, at best, gaining similar weight.
What interests us most here is how this will unfold and what impact this policy of advancing administrative and academic autonomy (after all, that is what it is all about) will have on Brazil.
Brazilian universities have also been the target of distrust and discredit by a not insignificant portion of the population. There are websites, blogs and groups on social networks that specialize in denigrating universities, particularly public ones.
It is true that they were more exposed a few years ago than they are today, especially in the periods immediately before and after the pandemic. During that period, the federal government also advanced on the autonomy of public universities and used budgetary constraints as an “argument”.
Similar examples can be found in several countries. The question remains: are we entering a “surge” of a new conservatism, both cultural and economic, that sees other directions for universities?
A simple prospective exercise of scenario-based scenarios of what might happen in the near future (five years), done with the instant help of an AI tool, helps us think about what might happen in the United States and the possible repercussions here. In this very simple exercise, I used only three critical uncertainties[1]: autonomy (political and academic); financing; and social impact.
Three scenarios were proposed by the tool and reviewed by me (the titles of the scenarios are my own):
Scenario “Peer review”: strengthening autonomy, funding, and credibility. In this highly optimistic scenario, U.S. research universities are expected to experience renewed public support and trust by 2030. Key factors include a favorable political climate that protects academic freedom, a reinvestment in higher education by federal and state governments, and the demonstrable success of universities in addressing social challenges. The result is a “virtuous cycle” of high autonomy, robust funding, and increased social impact. As a result, the current boom would recede, also depleting movements in other countries, including Brazil.
For this to happen, a radical change in current policy is needed. It is not impossible! It will depend on the directions that are explored in the future. An organized reaction by universities and supported by intellectual, economic and technological elites in that country could put a stop to the movement we are currently witnessing. Low probability, I know, but scenarios are not based on probabilities, but on possibilities.
Scenario "Review by the odd ones”: This is a pessimistic scenario in which increasing political interference and financial pressures undermine the traditional model of the US research university. In 2030, universities will find themselves constrained by external controls and dealing with severe resource constraints, often resolved through contracts with companies in certain sectors. The three uncertainties will have a negative impact: institutional autonomy will be eroded, funding will fall dramatically, and public trust will lose relevance. An environment will be created for the reorganization of teaching and research, focused more on immediate objectives than on the production and dissemination of knowledge.
The impacts here and in other countries would probably be high, reinforcing the conservative tide and drastically changing the course of things. This will depend heavily on the political context that we will have ahead – something that is currently impossible to predict.
If someone were to assign a probability to this scenario – something that, it is worth repeating, should not be done in this prospective methodology – it could even be low, but not as low as the first scenario, since the first steps are being taken in that direction. Being possible and impactful, it deserves our attention.
Scenario “Odds and Evens”: In this scenario, research universities navigate a middle path amid the uncertainties that have been looming over the academic world, having to expand their adaptive capacity, especially with regard to levels of autonomy, sources and means of funding, and engagement with society. The scenario until 2030 is mixed: political pressures persist, but universities learn to manage them, public funding is limited, forcing new sources of revenue, and institutions have to work hard and persistently to demonstrate their social value. The result is a remodeled higher education sector, more focused on the market, local and regional demands, and partnerships with different segments of society, sacrificing part of the traditional autonomy, but maintaining relevance through pragmatic commitments and innovation.
The implications for countries like ours, with a tradition of research universities accustomed to the Western (now also global) model of knowledge generation and use, would be equally high, with costs for the current model and for the construction of a modified vision of autonomy, financing and impact.
From the not recommended – but inevitable – probabilistic calculation that we are accustomed to making, this scenario seems, on subjective grounds, the most likely. It would imply changes in the governance structure, to use a general term that, if we wish, encompasses almost everything important in the organizational and managerial structure and even in the institutional model.
As history teaches, scenarios are exercises that help us look at a broad horizon of possibilities. They are not categorical. The future, most likely (and here probabilities are accepted, because nothing important would be excluded), will be a combination of points from the different scenarios.
If this is true, we have here a small and incomplete starting point to begin to re-discuss what we have to do to – as the signatories of the collective manifesto of American universities mentioned above say – expand a “constructive engagement that strengthens our universities and serves our republic”.
This discussion needs to be brought into Brazilian universities. It has been overshadowed by corporate agendas, almost always short-term, which, however urgent they may be, end up relegating to lower levels what, in fact and by law, should be at the top of the list of concerns.
How about establishing strategic and permanent guidelines of this nature in the main collegiate bodies of our university organization?
This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Unicamp
[1] Critical uncertainties in future scenarios are those variables whose behavior in the future can significantly change the course of things.
