Olivia Woo, Contributing Photographer

Last Thursday, two panels by Yale faculty addressed President Donald Trump’s cuts to education and research funding, urging a unified response from the University. 

Yale’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, organized two faculty panels on “Academic Repression and How We Can Resist It” following last week’s “Hands off Higher Ed” rally on Cross Campus. The first panel featured perspectives from Yale faculty in STEM fields, and the second panel hosted faculty in the humanities. 

“Not being able to depend on NIH funding means that I don’t really see a future for my lab in the United States, which is crazy to me and so sad,” said professor Valerie Horsley, who studies the role of stem cells in cancer formation. “That’s scary and sad and hard, but it’s the truth of the matter.”

The Trump administration reportedly considers a 40 percent funding cut to the National Institute of Health, or NIH, amounting to a drop of roughly $20 billion. What these potential cuts could mean for medical research at universities was top of mind for many at the panels.

Many professors highlighted that less funding would lead to fewer jobs and research opportunities.

Jake Thrasher GRD ’24, who currently works in professor Ryan Jensen’s DNA lab, shared that he was raised by a single parent on a public school teacher’s salary. The only reason he was able to build a career in science is that in high school, he said, he completed federally funded research, which was a “life-changing experience” for him. 

Thrasher believes that the recent funding cuts will not only hinder scientific advancement but will also harm socioeconomic mobility.

“Research is a way that working-class children can make a better future for themselves and for their families, and that’s really important to me,” Thrasher said. “I just know so many people that are very bright minds and they’re not going to have an opportunity to make their lives better, not only for themselves and their family, but for the world.”

School of Medicine professor Megan King also expressed her fears that funding cuts will prevent labs from paying their researchers, effectively restricting opportunities for those who cannot “afford to volunteer to get laboratory experience.” 

Professor Jeffrey Wickersham told the audience the NIH had terminated five of his lab’s grants in the past few weeks. One study that was terminated researched HIV treatment for transgender women in Malaysia. As part of the study, 62 active participants received HIV care from staff members in the field. Now, without funding, operations are severely reduced.

“Suddenly, people feel like every day, their jobs are going to be pulled out from under them,” said Wickersham. “We have a duty to these [study participants], to do the best we can for them and by them and to make sure that this science doesn’t die.”

Still, Horsley championed a message of optimism, suggesting that while “we’re in the dark,” what we are witnessing is a “rebirth” of scientific research. Horsley urged academics to “stand up to these changes” and continue pursuing the truth. 

The humanities panel later in the day focused on how federal policies targeting specific fields have inspired “self-censorship.” 

When looking to apply for funding from the National Endowment for Humanities, professor Jennifer Klein encountered the agency’s new policy to “no longer fund projects that ‘promote gender ideology.’” She reported spending “substantial time” deleting the word “gender” from her project proposal to qualify for funding.

“I’m not just changing words. What they’re trying to do is erase these whole fields,” she said. 

Professor Willie Jennings expressed similar concerns regarding language, adding that he was disturbed by how quickly “institutions have backed away from these important but generic words, inclusion and diversity.”

Faculty members and students alike emphasized the importance of supporting departments and subjects targeted by federal attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion. 

Funding cuts have also reduced the opportunities available for students in the humanities, restricting study abroad grants and dissuading international students from studying at Yale.

“I had three Fulbright [Scholars] from other countries who had applied to come to New Haven and do collaborations,” said professor Daniel HoSang. “Not only were all three denied, but none of those scholars want to come anymore.”

HoSang said funding cuts and policy changes are already having a practical effect on academia in the United States, and he fears “a cascading effect all the way around.”

Every panelist agreed on Yale’s imperative to stand up to the “academic repression” at the center of the panel’s discussion.

“I think we need to be playing a role as a very wealthy, powerful institution in not simply reading but actually following other examples that have been taken,” said School of Management professor Anna Harper. “I think one thing we have to do, and I see it happening here, is organize across the grounds.”

Nasrallah echoed this sentiment, arguing for unified opposition and solidarity across Yale.

Jennings reassured attendees that it is not a bad thing to be afraid in the current moment, as “fear and courage are siblings.”

“Yale, and many schools like Yale, will have to start thinking of itself like an HBCU. What does that mean? You never have enough money, you always have opposition,” Jennings said. “You do your work, hoping for a better future, and you don’t count on support from where you never had support, but you do your work.”

Yale currently holds the second-largest university endowment in the nation.