The outside world can be heard inside the Yale bubble these days. Rumblings and echoes from New York, Cambridge and Washington have alarmed many on campus, from President McInnis and Provost Strobel to the faculty. Yale’s mettle is being tested.

Cuts are coming, they say. Grants that fund research, especially indirect costs which pay for costly infrastructure, are endangered by the seemingly indiscriminate chainsawing of the infamous DOGE crew. Confiscatory taxes are contemplated — not just by the federal government but also by state and local officials looking for new revenue streams in uncertain times. 

Most ominously, federal funding is being used as a sword at Columbia University and perhaps elsewhere to intrude upon university autonomy.

Meanwhile, Yale’s name appears on the Trump hit list of institutions that have been put on some sort of notice: “we’re watching.”

Yale’s administration has heard the hoofbeats and has begun to react. The Provost’s Office appears to be counseling bean-counting and belt-tightening. Don’t plan on hiring much, if at all. Look for bloated programs. Don’t expect capital expenditures. Cut hot lunches in several residential colleges.

The faculty have taken note and some have responded with a thoughtful missive drawing attention to the obvious disproportionate growth in administrative staff and expenditures in recent decades, compared with quite modest growth in faculty size and salary. Cut administrators if cut you must, they say. Think about what Yale is really all about.

We see some value in these approaches. The hot lunch cutbacks, however, are particularly obtuse, as we shall elaborate in a later column. It makes sense to place Yale in a position where it cannot be blackmailed by outside forces of any sort — federal, state, local or even private, such as donors and unions. Cutting administrative expenses rather than faculty accords with our passion for Yale’s mission, properly viewed. 

But neither approach fully meets the moment. Purely as a matter of bean-counting: Columbia has been threatened with $400 million in cuts, for starters. The nipping and tucking that Yale’s provost suggests would cause pain and frustrate long-planned endeavors, while not nearly insulating Yale from cuts of this magnitude. Similarly, the faculty’s suggestions are proposals for targets rather than scale. 

In any event, the real cloud is far more than financial. The very idea of a university is on the line. Can Yale defend it — not just with words but also with deeds? 

Readers might reasonably expect Akhil to address the legal issues at this point; we intend to do so in detail in future episodes of our podcast, but for now we refer readers to an outstanding post on the Balkanization blog, founded and operated by Jack Balkin — professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School, who also teaches courses in Yale College. We note proudly that all seven scholar-bloggers attended Yale Law School and/or Yale College, and indeed, four of them attended both. These great scholars convincingly argue that several of the Trump administration’s actions towards Columbia have been flagrantly illegal.  They are: from the law school — Jamal Greene; from the college — Gillian Metzger and Olatunde Johnson; from both — Kate Andrias, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Jeremy Kessler and David Pozen.

Even more recently, a similar clarion call has been issued from 18 distinguished First Amendment scholars across the ideological spectrum, and has appeared on a classically conservative blog, the Volokh Conspiracy. This group of 18 comprises at least eight high-profile Yale affiliates, including multiple Sterling Professors and a former dean of the Yale Law School — to wit, Robert Post, Steve Calabresi, David Cole, Richard Epstein, Owen Fiss, Pam Karlan, Randall Kennedy and Keith Whittington. 

Backed by scholars such as these, Yale should be proud and bold in this moment.

Accordingly, we are drawn to an observation in the recent faculty letter to President McInnis: “No institution is better positioned to lead …With the second-largest per-student endowment in the world, Yale can navigate economic uncertainty without compromising its academic essence.” Yes. 

Other institutions are compelled to freeze hiring. Yale need not. While the endowment cannot be a card flashed at every problem, this is a time when Yale’s comparative advantage can be used to strengthen the institution for decades ahead. Not only should Yale not freeze hiring, but Yale should instead heat up hiring. In particular, Yale should seek to add generational faculty, legacy faculty — the very best scholars and teachers we can find.

This idea, in a very similar form, was in fact the best idea espoused by former Yale President Peter Salovey. In speeches to alumni during his presidential tenure, he proposed that Yale initiate a new named professorship on a par with the Sterling Professors, which are limited to 40 (disclaimer: Akhil holds a Sterling Professorship). This makes sense. The original Sterlings in the 1920s were limited to 18; subsequent growth in the endowment allowed more. By analogy, Yale’s endowment growth should have permitted further increases over the last 15 years.

Generational professors — legacy professors — further Yale’s mission disproportionately to their number. When Yalies from different eras meet, “Did you have Scully? Did you take Kagan?” are among the first questions asked. The public face of Yale is enhanced when the most brilliant and accomplished scholars take the stage. More of the great courses become available to more Yalies and those courses can be more intimate. More proteges can be molded to lead the next generation. The level of discourse throughout the university is elevated. 

And Yale should now send a message to the world that when the duress is greatest, we declare that this is what we care about the most: excellence. In an otherwise strong communication to the Yale community in late January, the president and provost failed to use this keyword, alas. 

Yale must always aim to attract the excellent — the best students, the best junior faculty, the best of everything. We must attract those who prioritize the excellence we unashamedly seek and acquire. If some of Yale’s excellent new hires in future months and years happen to be liberal, great! Take that, Donald! If conservative, also great! Ideological diversity is indeed a good thing, even if some of the people now chanting this mantra the loudest may not always have good intentions.  

The real value of having a spectacular endowment is not to build the coolest new building but to build our academic foundation when others are scrambling to get through. While it might seem that Yale would be feeding off others’ misery, in fact, this would constitute a statement that Yale will remain a bastion of inquiry and fearlessness in the face of those who would diminish such institutions. It would be a defense of lux et veritas.

If indeed drastic holes appear in Yale’s budget, it seems likely that these will be unevenly distributed across departments. Biology grants may be cut more than history, or whatever. Instead of reallocating based upon what is cut, which would essentially be allowing Washington to decide where Yale puts its emphasis, Yale should grasp the opportunity to make a grand reassessment of its own academic priorities. This should be a great look in the mirror and must not be limited to the Corporation or even the major administrators. The faculty should lead the way, with input from the alumni community as well as current students. And while we are at it, let’s take another look at that mission statement, which mysteriously remade itself a few years ago — more on that in a subsequent column. We are back to “the vision thing” once again.

Yale has the opportunity to proactively shape itself into a stronger, more rigorous institution rededicated to excellence, rather than one shaped reactively by external events and the imperatives of internal bureaucracy. The circumstances are unfortunate, but the outcome need not be. Carpe diem!

Addendum: We note today’s reporting on the departure of Professors Snyder, Shore and Stanley.  This is the opposite of the direction we hope Yale will take going forward. We will address this in a future column.

AKHIL REED AMAR is a Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science. Professor Amar graduated from Yale College in 1980, and from Yale Law School in 1984. Contact him at akhil.amar@yale.edu. 

ANDREW LIPKA is the President of EverScholar, a nonprofit that conducts immersive learning programs, originally for Yale alumni, and now for all. Dr. Lipka graduated from Yale College in 1978, and from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1982. He is a fellow of Jonathan Edwards College. Contact him at andrew.lipka@gmail.com. 

Akhil and Andy co-host the weekly podcast, Amarica’s Constitution. Their column,“Yale Friends for Life,” runs frequently and discusses all things Yale — its successes, shortcomings and mission — from the perspective of two alumni who love our small college.