Commentary: Why America can't afford to silence its universities

A rare point of agreement across the political spectrum for several decades was that money didn’t matter much in education. Conservatives opposed spending increases as wasteful; many progressives focused instead on structural reforms.

But a recent Albert Shanker Institute report traces the crucial shift in thinking on K-12 education spending, underscoring how more sophisticated data and methods have recast that belief. And it applies to higher education as well.

Citing analyses from experts such as Northwestern University economist Kirabo Jackson and statistician Larry Hedges, the report authors write, “To whatever extent the idea that ‘money doesn’t matter’ was ever credible, it is no longer.”

Policymakers from both parties have now reconsidered long-held positions. In state capitals from Kansas and Virginia to Pennsylvania, education budget discussions now focus less on whether to invest and more on how to invest effectively.

This shift appears driven not by politics but by research that followed the evidence. At its best, the power of university research can transcend partisan divides and provide evidence that improves policy for all Americans.

Yet today, this essential bridge between science and policy faces unprecedented threats as the new Department of Government Efficiency, under the second Donald Trump administration, has called for the elimination of the Department of Education after the slashing of half the department’s workforce, eliminating thousands of jobs, funding and oversight — and affecting fundamental research.

As director of Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research (IPR), I lead an institution that has weathered many political storms. Over the past 55 years, this research has remained relevant through nine presidential administrations — not by following political trends but by following evidence.

In 1968, amid urban unrest eerily similar to the tensions today, dedicated scholars built institutes such as the Urban Institute and Johns Hopkins’ Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research to bring rigorous evidence to bear on pressing social problems. The country faced deep divisions over racial discrimination, civil rights and war. Universities were under fire then, too, criticized simultaneously as hotbeds of radicalism and bastions of elitism.

From that turbulent era, research emerged that transformed American life for the better. In the early 1970s, IPR researchers documented discriminatory redlining practices in Chicago neighborhoods. Their evidence helped secure passage of landmark fair housing legislation that opened homeownership to millions of Americans previously excluded because of their race or where they hoped to live.

When Chicago launched its Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy in the early 1990s, researchers began what would become a two-decade study spanning four presidencies. The research didn’t advance a partisan agenda but simply documented what worked across changing political landscapes. The findings on community engagement and neighborhood-specific approaches have shaped policing in both progressive cities and conservative towns alike — proof that rigorous research can transcend political divides when focused on outcomes rather than ideology.

When a Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton enacted welfare reform in 1996, researchers tracked its real-world effects without ideological preconceptions. The resulting evidence helped state policymakers from both parties design more effective programs for working families.

IPR researchers showed that six years after mothers left the welfare rolls for work, their preschoolers and young children didn’t suffer any serious setbacks — and teens even experienced some improved outcomes. Another study painted a more complex picture for 1,300 Illinois families, revealing that welfare reform worked for those who found and kept jobs, but not for those who didn’t.

These weren’t partisan pursuits. They were investigations guided by scientific method rather than political preference — exactly what America needs more of today.

The White House has proposed slashing the funding that maintains university research infrastructure, placed politically motivated “holds” on federal research grants and launched investigations that could result in massive funding cuts — including the recent announcement of a Justice Department task force targeting university practices.

Why should Americans who aren’t faculty, academics, university administrators or policymakers — or those who have never set foot on a college campus — care?

These actions threaten America’s global leadership position. University research drives innovation, which is essential for economic growth. When political interference disrupts the research pipeline, the country cedes advantage to international competitors that are rapidly expanding their investments in knowledge creation.

Without rigorous evidence, policy decisions default to ideology and business as usual. When studies on economic opportunity get blocked, effective pathways out of poverty remain undiscovered, and families struggle to make ends meet. When research on climate adaptation gets shelved, communities remain vulnerable to floods and fires. When health research gets politicized, lifesaving treatments remain undeveloped, and health care costs continue to rise.

The current threats to university research aren’t about fiscal responsibility or accountability — they’re about control. Administration officials want to dictate what questions to ask and which evidence is acceptable to fit their worldviews and further their aims. This approach undermines the very process that makes university research valuable: the freedom to follow evidence wherever it leads.

In recent research on child poverty, economists have shown that nutrition assistance programs not only reduce hunger, addressing humanitarian concerns, but also improve children’s long-term health and economic self-sufficiency, addressing fiscal concerns.

This evidence has informed congressional decisions regardless of which party held power.

Similarly, researchers studying water security have developed measures now used globally to identify communities at risk. This work helps prevent humanitarian crises while enabling more efficient resource allocation — goals that transcend partisan divides.

America faces complex challenges that require sophisticated, evidence-based responses: economic opportunities, health care access, educational opportunity and public safety. Without robust university research, it is the same as flying blind, left to navigate by the dim light of ideology and special interests.

Certainly, America’s universities aren’t perfect. They require reform and renewal like any other institutions. But their capacity to produce knowledge that improves lives shouldn’t be sacrificed for short-term political goals.

What is at stake is not just the future of higher education, but also America’s ability to address its most pressing challenges with clarity, creativity and evidence.

____

Andrew V. Papachristos is a professor of sociology and director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.

___