As a professor, I’ve seen woke and MAGA censorship. Which is worse?

The Washington Post ^ | 10/18/2025 6:30 a.m. EDT | Crispin Sartwell

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Both attacks on free speech are devastating for academia, but in different ways.

Crispin Sartwell retired as a philosophy professor in 2023. His most recent book is “Beauty: A Quick Immersion.”

It didn’t take long for professors to point out that the right-wing wave of restrictions on expression, spurred by the Trump administration, is far worse than those characteristic of “the woke era.” After all, the woke restrictions were primarily internal, a matter of academic practice, as students, administrators and professors tried to eliminate any shred of skepticism toward diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. It was annoying — and devastating if you were fired or publicly shamed. In my view, it led to a dramatic decline in the quality of research.

But MAGA restrictions appear far more serious, as the administration threatens to withhold federal funds on ideological grounds, attempts to make colleges pledge themselves to Trumpian orthodoxy, drives university presidents from their jobs and vilifies the work of professors or students in a way that shames or even endangers them. This is direct governmental free-speech suppression, which is just what the founders of the American republic wanted to prevent: The First Amendment prohibits the government but not, say, private universities from restricting speech.

The classic picture of censorship involves a government crackdown. The Constitution’s fundamental purpose is to prevent that kind of suppression, which the founders had experienced at the hands of the British Empire. And a government crackdown is a different sort of beast than an atmosphere of social and professional pressure: The president of the United States can employ weapons, surveillance techniques and internment facilities of which (dare I say it) university vice provosts can only dream. A government’s oppressive power exceeds that of any private institution, and the dangers to...

[PGR88]

LOL - MAGA censorship doesn’t tell us what to think, but takes away our money!

[No.6]

The left censorship: we will fire you, deplatform you, your banks will not give you your money, we will ban you from grocery stores if we don’t jail you or kill you if you express that you noticed the effects of anything we’re doing. Also, we’re going to rape and mutilate your kids.

The right censorship: Stop doing that.

[Rockingham]

Lefties use “what about” claims far more often. They prefer to avoid genuine engagement with differing opinions and blurring and evading distinctions by ad hominem attacks is a way to do that.

[DoodleBob]

Sorry. It’s used on FR all the time.

Yeah, well what about when Obama did X..?

[DoodleBob]

The Trump admin “censorship” is a direct outcome of the statist expansion of Leviathan.

Back in the day, the govt didn’t touch every dimension of life, liberty, and property. Today, Universities are addicted to federal funding of R&D etc - something the Founders likely would abhor, and which (many but not all) conservatives and all libertarians reject.

Trump is effectively telling a heroine addict that they must behave the way he wants, or else he’ll withhold their smack. Clinically, that’s not censorship.

However, if the tables were turned and, say, the govt pulled funding to charities that promoted alternatives to abortion, “conservatives” would light up with righteousness indignation.

[Ex-Con777]

It proves that Crispin thinks our money is his money and taking it away is unlawful. Congress did not write any law restricting Cristin’s speech. It merely refused to send my money to him to speak.

EC

[fuzzylogic]

...and the ‘threat’ of “diversity of opinion” is, somehow, a ‘threat’ to free speech.

Clown show.

[CodeToad]

“Trumpian orthodoxy,”

That’s no professor. That is a a liberal propagandist.

[Rockingham]

True enough, as a convenient cudgel or as an opening to a larger point, but less so as a matter of philosophy in that Lefties often invent facts to make their “what about” claims work.

[Agatsu77]

Hey mister professor. STFU unless you have something FACTUAL to talk about. Sorry your feeling are SO hurt.

[No name given]

At all.

[Ford4000]

They like federal money but don’t like the expectations that come along with it.

[KC_Conspirator]

What an idiot. Total buffoon. Especially after those astro turfed low turnout protests this weeke.

[sergeantdave]

Whataboutism is simply another debating technique. Use it when you wish.

[enumerated]

What are you even talking about?

I’m not a professor and my feelings aren’t hurt.

I’m just saying that - as a professor - the author should know that the woke Left censors MAGA, not the other way around.

So it’s a dumb question.

[PeterPrinciple]

and vilifies the work of professors or students in a way that shames or even endangers them

---

we expose it for what it is. he admits some do experience shame from the exposure. Why are they shamed?

Because they are exposed or they see the truth?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

...and vilifies the work of professors or students in a way that shames or even endangers them...

Charlie Kirk enters the chat.

[DoodleBob]

So is “I know you are, but what am I?”

They’re equally credible.

[jimwatx]

Any political censorship is wrong as it violates the 1st Amendment. Doesn’t matter whether it comes from the right or left. I consider many of Trump’s actions against the Palestinian protesters to be in violation of the 1st Amendment. You’d think after what we had to deal with on the Left with their canceling of people he would know better but apparently he doesn’t. Now when the Left gets back in power and restarts their canceling crusade and we complain about it they will just say well you guys do it too.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I consider many of Trump’s actions against the Palestinian protesters to be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Such as?