In a normal moment of governance, an administration that believed American universities were regularly flouting US law would investigate and change them. Or, if they believed they were acting inappropriately but within the law, they would work to change the law.

Shakedowns are pathetic.

Yes!

Also, the idea that you would measure cultural change by the tiny subset of students you have in your particular classrooms ... just a ridiculous assumption by a scholar.

I taught more than 500 students a year and still knew that wasn't a fair sample of anything.

Also, we've already tried this. I haven't been in the profession *that* long and I remember when everyone was going to be an online learning autodidact. MOOCs! But somehow this latest tech is *definitely* going to deliver on those same old promises... Sure, sure.

Also, he just didn't actually "engage in dialogue." He pursued debates-as-performance with college students in order to sell himself, his organization, and his political philosophy. What he was doing neither brings people together nor generates new insights in addressing our challenges.

I do appreciate that he looked at the context of political violence rather than only at the politically useful examples. I just wish his actions, his willingness to govern, better reflected his language sometimes. Nice words aren't sufficient.

He's right that nothing he can *say* will fix the problem, but then he keeps leaning into words while actually *doing* little with his authority as governor. I was a fun once, but came to see that he believed too deeply in his own rhetoric instead of governance.

I was just talking to a colleague about this question today: Where did we get Labor Day? Where do fall on the Knights of Labor v. proto-AFL divide?

Can I take this chance to say that I really loved the book. Thanks for bringing it together and for your essays!

Love how he slips in Romney here. Did anyone suggest he was "beyond the pale," or did they just vote for their preferred candidate? Their candidate losing to a popular incumbent is some kind of irrecoverable slight? Come on!

I love this. Now I want to build a whole D&D campaign around it!

Love how, if I as a historian want an old article from one of these legacy publishers, I often need to pay - sometimes a whole subscription, sometimes by the piece. Because their old word is so valuable.

But A.I. comes along and they're rushing to give them all the access they can.

Hadn't heard, but that's been a target of the right going back to the 50s. They really are going through the old chopping lists.

*"to build a better one"

Using a broken system to build a bigger one is a tough lift but not impossible. I think about Lincoln and Radical Republicans enshrining the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

I would thrown in Puerto Rico. I know that's a heavier lift because racism. By population, it falls between IA and AR. 18 states and DC have fewer people and it has no meaningful representation in the national government.

For once, I would like them to say who/what they are "protecting democracy" from. Put a name to it and then act accordingly. Otherwise, it's just empty fluff, replaceable by whatever AI decides to insert their next.

Where does this exception — "that does not pose an imminent threat to the US" — come from? Legally?

It seems like accepting this extra-legal exception has gotten us into more trouble than the hypothetical it's supposed to prevent.