ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

“Committed to diversity and inclusion.�

This phrase was in the university’s 61-word “land acknowledgment,� noting that the university is on Indigenous lands and acknowledging the state’s 22 federally recognized tribes. But now, as my colleague Prerana Sannappanavar revealed Thursday, those words are being excised, leaving a 56-word statement without the commitment that could run afoul of the Trump administration’s edicts against diversity efforts.

The erasure isn’t a big deal on its own. It’s hard to believe anybody reads those statements, or focuses on them word for word anyway. But it’s a big deal in this way: Universities, including the University of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥, are under sustained attack from the Trump administration as part of a conservative effort to punish them for being perceived bastions of political leftism.

The administration has demanded that schools and universities remove all diversity and equity programs and even squelch race- or ethnicity-based student events and associations. It has also ordered that federal research grants from the National Institutes of Health — one of the biggest sources of federal grants at the UA — be slashed by 40 percentage points.

The university, already weakened by the financial crisis that emerged in 2023, is not in a great position to fight these edicts. But giving ground publicly, without also making a strong public case for itself and its values, sends a dangerous message of weakness and compliance.

As the historian of Central Europe and author Timothy Snyder has written, is one of the key principles of resisting authoritarianism.

“Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given,� wrote Snyder, a Yale University historian. “In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.�

Mount a public defense

Universities like the U of A are in a tough position, no doubt, because standing out brings attention to them, which could in turn cause retaliation. If the U of A administration refuses, for example, to follow federal edicts about eliminating diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, then it risks becoming a target of the federal government.

If as a result, the Trump administration withholds federal funding, then that hurts U of A students, employees and research, or at least ties that funding up in litigation.

Separately, the universities have an image problem that they may not see clearly. Conservative America has turned against them, . In , only 31% of Republicans said colleges and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country.

There’s also been in academic research. For the last 20 years, evidence has built that large swaths of published research are not replicable, meaning that they are of questionable scientific validity. This has also raised some public skepticism about what university researchers do.

For now, the U of A has kept its resistance to the Trump administration’s edicts to the courts. The ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ attorney general has joined a suit against the National Institutes of Health for drastically cutting the amount of indirect costs it pays with its health-related federal research grants. The UA gets 54.5% of the value of each federal research grant added to the grant to cover overhead, or “indirect costs.â€�

“Recovering costs of research is essential to maintaining UA operations,� Tomás Díaz de la Rubia, the UA’s senior vice president for research and innovation, said in a sworn court filing Feb. 18. “UA incurs significant costs to perform research sponsored by federal agencies, which it otherwise would not incur. Indirect cost rates allow UA to recover some of the costs incurred.�

This is good, but it’s hidden away in a court case to which the university isn’t even a party. I think there is an alternative path. It’s to put up an affirmative public defense of what the university does, especially its research operations.

Research ‘to make people’s lives better’

You might have come across Erika Hamden’s name and work any number of places. The UA astrophysicist has active channels on Instagram and TikTok, has done TED talks, and has hosted a TV show on ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Public Media, called New Frontiers. She as a “science influencer.â€�

In her day job as associate professor of astronomy and director of the UA Space Institute, she also does federally funded research. NASA has been her big grant funder, with the biggest grant so far reaching $20 million for the that will study the formation of galaxies through ultraviolet light.

“Space has enjoyed bipartisan support for a very long time,� Hamden told me Thursday. “Our work can sometimes feel esoteric — like, who cares how a galaxy forms? But there are concrete benefits. GPS works because we understand general relativity.�

The indirect costs that come with her grant pay for, among other things, a “clean room� free of dust and particles, and the people who maintain it. Money also goes to the UA for other infrastructure costs.

“This is a model decided after World War II when the U.S. government decided it wanted to support scientific research in America to make people’s lives better,� Hamden said. “It’s possible to build a different structure, but you have to figure out a way to keep the lights on.�

UA virologist Felicia Goodrum Sterling, too, defended the system as one that has worked. Goodrum Sterling, a professor of immunobiology who researches cytomegaloviruses, said that overhead, depending on the details of the research, may pay for biosafety officers, as well as chemical-safety and radiation-safety oversight. Special oversight goes to research like hers involving bloodborne pathogens, too. Then there’s the simple infrastructure and administration of her research, also paid through indirect costs.

“I’m not saying they can’t be renegotiated, but you can’t cut institutions from 55-plus percent to 15 percent overnight,� she said.

Goodrum Sterling is also editor in chief of virology’s preeminent journal, the Journal of Virology. In that role, she said, “We’re walking this fine line. If we say nothing, everything’s going to fall. And if we say something, there’s retaliation.�

She would like to see more pushback from Congress, the state government and the universities themselves, she said.

Make case to a skeptical public

For its part, the University of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ administration argues it is trying to strike the right balance. In a statement, UA spokesperson Mitch Zak pointed to the research accomplishments of new president Suresh Garimella and of Díaz de la Rubia.

He noted, “They are not only accomplished leaders and champions of the university’s research powerhouse, but they also have years of experience and exceptional proficiency working with federal agencies. The work is deliberate and not always seen in the media.�

But if it’s not seen in the media, or on social media, then it may not be seen in the public sphere. That’s a place where universities like the University of ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ need to make their argument to a skeptical public.

They need to show why the inflated-sounding number of 54.5% makes sense. They need to make the case that it benefits the public. They need to defend their researchers. Otherwise, the impression is left that they don’t have a case to make.

They also need to be willing to hold on, not preemptively censor themselves, when they hear that the word police are hunting for phrases like diversity and inclusion. Don’t obey in advance.