Several humanities professors’ research funding is currently tied up in a legal battle catalyzed by a threat that many of them say is unconstitutional. 

In early April, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) canceled several research grants that were initially approved in the previous presidential administration. Reports indicate that millions in funding will be redirected to other projects under the current administration, one of which includes an apparent “patriotic sculpture garden.” Several Stanford professors have had their grants revoked.          

In late July, a judge ruled in a class-action lawsuit filed by the Author’s Guild against the administration’s attempt to cancel previously committed grants to researchers, citing that it violated the First Amendment and federal law. Currently, the case is pending, leaving professors unsure of the status of their grants. 

One such grant that was canceled was that of Jessica Riskin, a professor of history at Stanford. Riskin, whose grant focused on curating web archives of important figures in evolutionary history that would consist of materials such as letters and publications, outlined the importance of her grant.

“Part of it was also to see about preserving these websites as they fall into obsolescence,” Riskin said. “How can we pull them back out of obsolescence and redesign them in a way that will carry forth into the future?”

Riskin found out about the cancellation in April, criticizing its unconventional nature. “It’s illegal,” Riskin said. “You can’t just send an email saying that your grant is canceled … this was not done in any legitimate or legal way.” 

“We are aware that some Stanford faculty have had their grants revoked by the federal government, and we have appealed the decision when possible. The H&S Dean’s Office and the Office of the Vice Provost and Dean of Research are providing guidance to researchers on steps they should take based on the announcements of individual agencies,” the University wrote in an email to The Daily.

The University also wrote about its actions supporting those affected by the cuts. 

“Stanford is closely monitoring federal directives related to federally funded research,” a University spokesperson wrote. “The university is partnering with peer institutions and industry associations to advocate for federal policies that support the vital partnership between the federal government and research universities, a partnership that has made the United States the leader in creativity, innovation, and discovery.”

English professor Margaret Cohen, who had a grant to develop an oceanic humanities curriculum with other researchers, also had her award “administratively withdrawn” by the NEH in late May with “no explanation.” 

Cohen’s grant was not included in the lawsuit filed by the Author’s Guild due to her award account not having been set up at the time. It is unclear whether her grant will be added to it in the future. 

Cohen hypothesized that some key phrases in her award may have caught the current administration’s attention.

“The way we phrased it in our award runs into conflict with some of the priorities of the Trump administration,” Cohen said. “We do talk about climate change and a lot of social inequality that goes on around the practice of the oceans … but was that what caused it to be canceled? Or, was it just that all the NEHs were canceled?” 

Riskin also expressed concern on how the current administration approaches engagement with scholars, saying that the federal government shouldn’t be able to declare how universities allocate their resources and decide which subjects to pursue in research. 

“I think it’s just profoundly illegitimate and destructive to have the federal government to have not through research-oriented institutions but sort of by fiat decide how universities should be allocating their resources, what subjects should be pursued: that’s a totalitarian world,” Riskin said.

So far, university administration have been receptive to helping the professors, according to Riskin, who specifically thanked Dean of Research David Studdart and department of medicine professor Judith Prochaska for their efforts. Moreover, according to Riskin, University president Jonathan Levin ’94 and Provost Jenny Martinez so far have been “extremely willing” to have discussions with the impacted professors. 

Although university staff have extended help toward Riskin and fellow professors, as a co-president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Riskin questioned the university’s somewhat passive stance in directly engaging with the current administration. 

“So far, Stanford has not been in the crosshairs … I feel that the university is a bit reticent to fight back,” Riskin said. “We’re really trying to push for that: don’t negotiate, don’t make deals – these things are illegal.”

Cohen concurred that Stanford is keeping a low-profile explaining that, although she has been in touch with the university about other sources of funding, right now “the university is under pressure in so many different directions.”

To many, funding cuts are just the beginning. “It’s the initiatives which are open-ended; it’s the risks and experiments, and interdisciplinary work is very often engaged in that, that we’re going to lose,” Cohen said.

Riskin stated that the current administration’s power may surmount the legal obstacles. 

“As [this case] gets appealed up through the legal system, when things arrive at the Supreme Court, they seem likelier than not to decide in the administration’s favor,” Riskin said. “This [judge blocking the revocation] is just a very preliminary piece of good news.” 

Due to this, Riskin concluded by emphasizing the need for pushback. 

“It’s illegal and catastrophic; we have to fight back to prevent it from happening,” Riskin said.