Michael Taffe

The NYT reporting on Harvard making a deal turns out to be a Trump propaganda falsehood.

The (seemingly false) NYT report of Harvard caving probably helped the Trump Administration bully other universities into making deals. So this stuff matters.

Columbia. Harvard. UPenn. George Mason. UVA. UCLA.

One by one, universities are being attacked—financially, politically, ideologically.

Faculty & staff: don’t wait for it to hit your campus. Join the national movement defending higher ed.

standtogetherhighered.org (sign up on homepage)

“An entire institute that does nothing more than DEI research at NIH.” Russ Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was interviewed on CNN by Jake Tapper over the weekend. Around 9:31 of this clip, he says “You literally have an entire inst…

"An entire institute that does nothing more than DEI research at NIH." tlneuro.wordpress.com/2025/07/28/a...

Diversity is not illegal. Equity is not illegal. Inclusion is not illegal. And the only heritage the Heritage Foundation promotes is the worst heritage in all of American history.

“The vaguely worded correspondence offered her a piece of guidance: remove participant-survey questions about experiences of discrimination. On 10 July, she received notice that her grant had been fully reinstated.”

Re-retiring five years after your first retirement from the NFL is exactly the weaksauce you’d expect from the Chargers organization.

HIS DAUGHTER, specifically.

The media inherently thinks secrets that are dug up are more damning than confessions shouted in public -- which is why a forgotten birthday greeting has gotten more attention than all the times Trump spoke into a microphone or voluntarily put in print the words "I LIKE TO FUCK CHILDREN"

Making America great again

Hot take: well actually we are not that great at self-governing

Umm. So “depression is good, actually” is the position of Bobby Jr’s HHS?

👇what one expects from a FDA panel when the Commissioner starts the session by saying “The more antidepressants we prescribe, the more depression there is"

Nb: I did not intend that as an instruction manual for decreasing faculty representation and equitable opportunity at Duke. Quite the opposite.

I've paid my own way basically my entire career. A lot of PIs are going to have to get scrappy to survive this.

I wonder who this new Duke salary policy will hit the hardest? If only someone had warned Duke school of medicine people directly.

warpwire.duke.edu/w/TwEHAA/

It’s hard enough for soft money people themselves to understand why 100% NIH-supported effort doesn’t mean only 40 h per week with the other hours free to write new grant proposals. Imagine. Explaining this to the lay audience*.
*your mom**.
**and her friends

Professional effort parsing is unlikely, I realize, to save anyone. It may be time, however, to explain this for my Fb audience*.
*my mom. And her friends.

So when do they move on to saying no-one who has ever touched a DEI course/workshop/etc is not allowed to have NIH funding? We're getting close to that.

This is a very serious concern. And the regime has been moving far faster than any of us imaginedz

Admittedly my mouthiness about matters NIH makes this unlikely. But still. It’s a no-go now. Because of my *obligations* as a Professor appointed at a University of California campus.

Would I be punished by the NIH in some way for meeting the obligations of my job that have nothing to do with NIH funded activity? Maybe? I’m at the stage of my career where I *might* be on the very long list for Council or Board of Sci Counselors.

As it happens, I recently received a document that re-iterates my job duties and responsibilities. It mentions DEI contributions. So I think I am okay there.

I have never been happier to have half of my professional effort covered by something other than federal grants. Any objections to my professional views on anything DEI related will have to be taken up with the State of California.

If one is on full soft money (minus the 3-5% fig leaf of course)….this more or less suggests you are not allowed to have professional thoughts discordant with the new regime.

Some will be in the position of having responded in the past to *NIH* diversity goals, creating public facing materials and a professional record. Now they will be audited to make sure no such activity is funded by the NIH going forward?

Exclusive: NIH to dismiss dozens of grant reviewers to align with Trump priorities The move would undo years of work, leaving advisory councils understaffed, and without the full expertise needed for reviews.

The implication that scientists are unfit to participate on NIH advisory panels because of their political views or professional views on the value of diversity, equity and inclusion is chilling.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

I agree.

Council meetings will now last five days.

Picking new members takes time: NIH staff spend 1-2 years screening candidates, getting approval, doing background/ ethics checks.

Some staff are now screening candidates’ social media to see if they've said anything negative about the Trump administration or have been involved with DEI efforts.