Latest news with #CentralEuropeanUniversity
Scroll.in
5 days ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
India to Hungary to the US: Nostalgic nationalism is helping populists attack higher education
Harvard University is under siege by the Trump administration – and the world is watching. But this case isn't just an American issue. It's part of a global trend: universities cast as enemies and institutions in need of reform. Populist, right-wing governments are blaming universities for tearing at the fabric of nations. These attacks are part of a broader strategy known as affective nationalism. It occurs when leaders use emotions, not just ideas, to build national identity. Feelings such as fear, pride, nostalgia and resentment are deployed to create a story about who belongs, who doesn't and who's to blame. As scholars who study nationalism, emotion and higher education, we explore the emotional politics behind these attacks. Much of President Donald Trump's vision and rhetoric is inspired by Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has waged a culture war on higher education for over a decade, banning gender studies and reshaping university governance. Orbán's attacks on Central European University expose his hostility to academic freedom, critical thinking and diversity. All are viewed as threats to his nationalist 'illiberal democracy'. Trump followed Orbán's playbook. On May 22, 2025, his administration declared that Harvard could no longer enroll foreign students. A US Department of Homeland Security statement claimed that university leaders 'created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators'. The statement suggested that many of the so-called agitators were foreign students. Similarly, in India, students at Jawaharlal Nehru University were labeled 'anti-national' for protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act, which provides fast-track citizenship to non-Muslim refugees. The students argued that it marginalises Muslims. Since 2016, the Modi government has increasingly used 'anti-national' and sedition charges to silence student and academic dissent. These labels – 'elite,' 'foreign' or 'anti-national' – are not neutral. They fuel fear, resentment and powerful narratives that frame universities as threats. Harvard, Central European University and Jawaharlal Nehru University have become symbols of broader national anxieties around identity and belonging. British-Australian feminist scholar Sara Ahmed's work on the sticky nature of emotions helps reveal the two emotions that often appear in attacks on universities: nostalgia and resentment. Nostalgia is a longing for a better past. Consider Trump's 'Make American Great Again' slogan. It implies the nation was once great, has declined and must reclaim its former glory. That's a powerful emotional story. Nationalism often works this way – by telling a tale of a lost golden age and a future that must be saved. For that reason, nostalgia is central to populist attacks on universities and institutional reform. US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, for example, evoked Harvard's symbolic past as part of the American Dream, arguing it has lost its way and 'put its reputation in serious jeopardy.' In India, Modi's government rejects Western influence, while using nostalgia to revive a Hindu past in higher education. The Modi government promotes national pride on campuses by glorifying military heroes and installing symbolic figures – such as the statue of Swami Vivekananda, a Hindu monk and philosopher, at Jawaharlal Nehru University – to shape student identity and loyalty. In Hungary, Orbán mobilises a glorified Christian past to challenge discourses on diversity, inclusion, critical inquiry and academic freedom in higher education. A 2021 bill tasks universities with defending the nation and preserving its intellectual and cultural heritage. Resentment is a powerful emotion often used by states that see themselves as defenders of national unity and values. When Harvard resisted Trump's reforms, the president framed the university's stance in a Truth Social post as a betrayal to the nation, denouncing it as 'terrorist inspired/supporting 'sickness''. Meanwhile, the Department of Education issued a statement that accused the university of a 'troubling entitlement mindset.' Similarly, in India, the Modi government has increasingly framed public universities – especially those with critical voices – as 'anti-national' spaces. By casting critical voices as enemies within, the state turns resentment into a political weapon to justify the erosion of academic freedom. In Hungary, the Orbán government mobilised resentment to portray universities and academics as disloyal elites working against the nation. One example of Hungary's war on universities is the 2018 ban on gender studies, justified by the Orbán government as rejecting 'socially constructed genders' in favor of 'biological sexes.' This move reflects how the government uses resentment to assert ideological control over academic institutions. Universities, especially elite ones such as Harvard and Jawaharlal Nehru University, carry deep symbolic weight. People care because of what the institutions represent. Harvard, with its elite status, has long been a symbol of academic authority. But more recently, it has been cast as a defender of liberal higher education – making it a Trump administration target. Jawaharlal Nehru University in India holds similar symbolic weight. It's historically associated with producing the country's social elites and is seen, especially in mainstream media, as left-leaning, making it a lightning rod in India's polarised political landscape. In Hungary, the Orbán government viewed Central European University as a danger because it threatened the government's Christian-nationalist vision of the nation-state. Universities are under attack not just for what they teach and research, but for what – and who – they represent. These are not just ideological disputes; they are emotional struggles over identity, belonging and public trust. Riyad A Shahjahan is Professor of Higher, Adult and Life Long Education, Michigan State University. Michalinos Zembylas is Professor of Educational Theory and Curriculum Studies, Open University of Cyprus. This article was first published on The Conversation .
Eyewitness News
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show
At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants his country to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship". - 'Open-air museum' - "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," Enyedi said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," the researcher added. US author Rod Dreher, who lives in Budapest and promotes the "Hungarian model" in the United States, praises the two leaders' common fight against the "ideological left". "It does matter a lot to ordinary Americans when their little children are being sent to schools and being taught about transgenderism," the 58-year-old told AFP. - 'Strongman' tactics - In a recent discussion hosted by the Hungarian-government-financed Danube Institute, where he works, Dreher cited the example of the University of Pennsylvania, which agreed to ban biological males from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights complaint. "Pure Orban," Dreher says. "We would not have gotten that out of a normie Republican president. "When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre." The Trump administration has threatened to cut funding to prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia, criticised federal judges who suspend its decisions and is in open conflict with major media outlets. By limiting access to certain journalists and replacing them with fringe media loyal to his cause, Trump is very similar to Orban, according to Enyedi. "Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge," he said. This week, the CBS network announced the end of Stephen Colbert's "The Late Show", long a staple of late night US television, saying it was "purely a financial decision". It came days after the comedian blasted parent company Paramount's $16 million settlement with Trump as "a big fat bribe". But, for now, dissenting voices remain much stronger in the United States than in Hungary. While Orban has not yet been invited to the White House in Trump's current term, envoy Palladino foresees that a visit by the US president to Budapest is "hopefully not too far off". Such a "historic visit" would, he said, be "a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity. "But that moment won't happen on its own. It will require vision, effort, and commitment -- on both sides of the Atlantic."
New Indian Express
20-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
'Trump before Trump': Orban's illiberal model on show in Hungary
BUDAPEST: At the American embassy in Budapest, the atmosphere has changed since US President Donald Trump was sworn in six months ago. "No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums," the new charge d'affaires Robert Palladino told guests, including several Hungarian ministers, at this month's US Independence Day celebration. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban wants the European nation to serve as a laboratory of far-right ideas and an inspiration for Trump, whom the nationalist describes as "a great friend", and is hoping for a US presidential visit. Self-touted as a "Trump before Trump", Orban has transformed the national life of Hungary, an EU member and home to 9.5 million people, during his 15-year rule. In his drive to build what he has called an "illiberal state", he has been accused of silencing critical voices from the judiciary, academia, media and civil society, and of restricting minority rights. Trump's predecessor Joe Biden once accused him of "looking for dictatorship." 'Open-air museum' "Hungary is like an open-air museum, whose leader appears to have proved it is possible to bring back the so-called good old days," Zsolt Enyedi, a senior democracy researcher at Vienna-based Central European University, told AFP. "Illiberal ideas have been institutionalised," he added. Both Trump and Orban target minorities, including the LGBTQ community. "Orban realised there was not a strong public resistance to incitation against vulnerable groups... so he leveraged these to campaign," the researcher said. "Similarly, Trump deports people without going through due process as American conventions would dictate," Enyedi added.
The Sun
20-07-2025
- Politics
- The Sun
Orban's illiberal model in Hungary draws Trump comparisons
BUDAPEST: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has positioned himself as a pioneer of far-right governance, earning comparisons to former US President Donald Trump. With a self-proclaimed 'illiberal state' model, Orban's policies have reshaped Hungary's political landscape, drawing both admiration and criticism. At a recent US Independence Day celebration in Budapest, American charge d'affaires Robert Palladino noted the shift in diplomatic tone, stating, 'No more public scoldings. No more moralising from podiums.' Orban, who calls Trump 'a great friend,' hopes for a US presidential visit to solidify their ideological alliance. Over his 15-year rule, Orban has been accused of suppressing judicial independence, academia, media, and civil society while restricting minority rights. Former US President Joe Biden once accused him of 'looking for dictatorship.' Zsolt Enyedi, a democracy researcher at Central European University, described Hungary as 'an open-air museum' where illiberal ideas have been institutionalised. Both Orban and Trump have targeted minorities, including the LGBTQ community, leveraging public divisions for political gain. US author Rod Dreher, a Budapest resident, defends Orban's policies, arguing that the 'Hungarian model' counters left-wing ideologies. He praised Trump's hardline stance, stating, 'When institutions that should be neutral are so far to the left, it takes a strongman like Trump just to try to bring them back to the centre.' Trump's tactics—such as threatening university funding and sidelining critical media—mirror Orban's strategies. Enyedi noted, 'Both make it clear that they are acting out of revenge.' Despite similarities, dissenting voices remain stronger in the US than in Hungary. While Orban awaits a White House invitation, Palladino hinted at a potential Trump visit to Budapest, calling it 'a reflection of real alignment between two sovereign nations that believe in tradition, strength, and identity.' - AFP
The Wire
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Full Text: How Did Anger Over a Roof Collapse Trigger Serbia's Democratic, Student-Led Protests?
In this episode of her fortnightly podcast Democracy in Question, Shalini Randeria, rector at the Central European University, Vienna, hosts Ivanka Popovic, professor with the Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, a scholar of polymer engineering and sustainable development. She was rector of the University of Belgrade (2018-2021) and has been actively involved with the civic initiative ProGlas, which she co-founded in 2023. Their conversation recorded in April 2025 addresses the expanding wave of societal mobilisation in Serbia since November 2024, when a newly renovated railway station roof collapse killed 16 people in Novi Sad. With demands for investigating the culpability of high-ranking politicians being stonewalled by the government, the protests now threaten to shake the foundations of President Aleksandar Vucic's regime, as a student-led movement has recently demanded new elections. The following is an edited excerpt of part 1 (of 2) of the conversation: § Ivanka Popovic (IP): Shalini, I'm grateful for the opportunity to present to a broader audience what is going on in Serbia because it's not getting enough attention. Shalini Randeria (SR): Were you surprised that the collapse of the canopy could ignite such sustained protests all over the country? Or is it that the Novi Sad tragedy can be seen as the last straw, the anger against the cronyism of the Vucic regime? IP: Novi Sad sparked the realisation that all of us are potential victims. It is the shock that no one is safe anywhere because of the shoddiness of the work that is being done all over Serbia, because of the mass corruption, because the money going into any construction is minimal compared to what is formally being invested. The initial response was of deep sorrow and condolences to the families of the victims. Some students who were paying their respects were attacked by a group of hooligans that were later recognised to be active members of the ruling party. That was the trigger when the students said, enough is enough. They drew back into their faculties. They blocked the buildings. They said they would not attend classes, and they came out with four requests. They wanted accountability for those who participated in the project of the Novi Sad reconstruction, accountability of those who attacked them, and of those who have been arresting peaceful protestors and students and jailing them and charging them with criminal charges. So, it was the students' cry for a normal functioning of the state with rule of law and independent institutions. These demands have been massively supported by the population. The students have kept it a nameless protest just to keep themselves safe from persecution. They don't want to give a face to the protest, they want to have everyone participating in it. SR: But it isn't easy to mobilise citizens in Serbia as the Vucic regime maintains complete control of the media. Could you describe how the students have nevertheless managed to spread their message so successfully throughout the country? And how did they bridge the urban-rural divide to garner the support of villagers, farmers? IP: Initially, everything that the students were doing was only covered by the independent press and media [which] in Serbia do not have national coverage. The media with national coverage are controlled by the government. People outside of Belgrade in smaller towns and villages didn't know what was going on. This changed when the students started marching from town to town taking the local roads and speaking to villagers to explain what they were doing and why. And they were cheered on and very well received. The turning point was when some of the students went home for the Christmas-New Year break. Many of their parents or grandparents, who only watched state-controlled TV, didn't know what was going on or were disturbed that their children were engaged in anti-state activities. But when the students started elaborating, things started to change. And when these marches started, a broader base of support was developing. And it wasn't just Belgrade and Novi Sad that were protesting, but also other cities with universities, smaller towns. You really had a mass uprising of discontent. And this was not something led by opposition political parties. It was truly a citizens' movement asking for change. SR: Remarkably, the momentum of protests has been sustained undeterred despite severe, brutal repression by government forces. What has this broad countrywide mobilisation been able to achieve during the past half a year? IP: Six months into this, none of the demands of the students have been met. There have been only some cosmetic moves by the government. The ruling party has also stooped to violence. Students have been beaten, they have been rammed by moving cars and threatened and there have been some very serious injuries. A young female student was bludgeoned with a baseball bat; this did provoke the resignation of the Serbian prime minister. Now in April there is a new government, but it is just a continuation of the old. But it is even more clear in its message that no dissent will be tolerated. Prolonged protests are becoming an embarrassment to the president because the students have clearly stated that the president is acting outside of what he's legally [allowed] as president to do. SR: Nevertheless, the demonstrations have only grown in size and number. In March alone, there were some 400 protests across Serbia and the largest demonstration in Belgrade on March 15 saw more than 300,000 people on the streets demanding justice, transparency and punishment for the culprits. IP: It was a very peaceful protest that was interrupted by use of a sonic weapon. The exact origins of this sonic weapon are not clear. There has been a really farcical explanation by the government; the forensics have been done by the Russian FSB, the security services. And these security services have claimed that no sonic weapon was used, but that this was a very well-orchestrated group performance using mobile phones. This is nonsense. More than 3,000 people have reported either psychological or medical issues after this incident. SR: Let's situate the current protests in a broader historical context. Serbia has a long tradition of societal mobilisation, and also of student protests. The current wave is being compared to the student-led protests in 1968. And then again in the late 1990s, Serbia saw mass rallies by students against the Milosevic regime. It took almost three years to topple the Milosevic regime and send him to trial for war crimes to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Could you talk about this longer history of student-led protests and the role of universities in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia as focal points of social protests? Is there anything distinctive about the current protests? IP: You're right that there is a tradition. Once in a generation or a generation and a half, the students play a very important role in societal events in Serbia. In 1968, this was not a reflection of what was going on in Paris or Berlin. It was something that was related to a call for justice within a socialist regime. And this was a very important time. It also formed a generation of young people with open minds. They were the parents of those who demonstrated in the nineties against the Milosevic regime. There the trigger was election fraud. Opposition parties and the students together eventually brought about the change in October 2000. The students have not currently pointed toward irregularities in elections. Students are talking about potential elections and what we have seen in the past few elections. Vucic likes to hold elections every two years. He shows that he's in control and that he has majority support. But it's also a practical exercise because every time his grip and control of the electoral machine are becoming stronger. He has gone deeply into the electoral software where he can control the voting lists. He also has very good control of the polling stations. And we have seen a massive movement of voters within Serbia where people are being reinstated in another municipality. He has also been importing voters from Bosnia, from Montenegro, giving them citizenship, so they can vote. There has been a lot of manipulation, and some investigative NGOs realised the extent of how this scheme of rigging elections functions. And that's why any future election in Serbia is pointless unless we have a significant change in conditions of voting. Vucic will allow elections only if he's sure that he can win them. SR: Let me turn to the question of what university life has been like over the last six months. Decision-making on the course of protests by students has been the result of open discussions in a very democratic fashion in various faculties across universities in the country. Could you describe the daily assemblies, where decisions are being made? IP: They're practicing direct democracy through the operation of a plenum, which means that students gather, they discuss and make majority decisions. But because each has the right to speak and propose, these meetings take a long time. It's a slow process for making decisions and sometimes there is a time limit to these protests. If there's an incident where it's very important that the students should go to the national TV station and block it, they will be there within hours. But in order to make these political articulations, these are really long, tedious talks. First at the faculty level, then at the university level and if we're going to make a unanimous decision at the national level, that means amongst universities there must be agreement. So, the students are going through a wonderful education in democracy and active citizenship in life. I think it's commendable, it's wonderful. But I would say for some of the citizens, it's nerve-wracking because people who are older, with more experience, who remember the previous protests and the fact that they were not successful are really worrying. SR: If I understand correctly, normal life in universities has come to a standstill. Students have received a lot of support from faculty members and have been blocking faculties at state universities from functioning. And it seems as if this academic year may have to be written off. Schoolteachers also supported the countrywide protests. And unsurprisingly, the government has declared the students 'foreign agents' to discredit them. Could you say something about harsh punitive measures imposed by the government on faculty members? It looks as if this will also turn into a very important struggle for academic freedom and for the autonomy of universities. IP: Universities in Serbia have played very important roles in societal changes. This ruling party is anti-knowledge, anti-intellectual, anti-elite. They would like a very submissive population. In primary and secondary schools, you have short-term contracts. And there have been cuts in salaries for teachers, but they have been carrying this with great dignity. But it's not easy for months to receive no salary or only part of the salary. And this has also happened now with the university, but in a way that cuts into the essence of what a university is. The government has passed regulation that 85% of university professors' time should be devoted to teaching and 15% to research. And as there is no teaching going on (which is not true, there is no formal teaching but within the faculties, you've had workshops, panel discussions) salaries are cut to 15%. University professors are living from salary to salary. It's something that will undermine the protests. SR: So, the government is trying to turn universities into mere teaching machines to impart technical skills, but it no longer wishes to support independent research. What are the other legal changes introduced by the government to undermine institutional autonomy and to pressure faculty into submission? IP: Being turned into teaching institutions alone severely undermines the definition of being a university. Teaching and research together are extremely important. I'm really worried that this is a systematic approach to having complete control over universities. The ruling party since 2017 has been tweaking laws related to university operations. There's a law on student organising, there are laws on higher education that have endangered the autonomy of the university as we know it. Universities and faculties have councils, which now have a majority of representatives of the state. Before these student protests, students were also the weak link and were being utilised by the government to form a coalition against the academic part of these councils. So, it was sort of a stranglehold over universities. Now, of course, with the students playing a different role, this is not as easy. But the government is willing to strangle and starve the university out of operation. The previous minister of education even called on deans to invite police into the faculties so that they could kick students out of faculties. The government wants to break the back of universities. They want to put them in a position of submission that [one where] their only job is to do some teaching that will provide maybe skills, but not the capacity of critical thinking. The academic community wholeheartedly supports the students. But if you deprive them of their livelihood for a longer period, you're putting them in an impossible position where they have to choose between the wellbeing of their children and the wellbeing of their institution. It's a very nasty game that is being played now. Faculties are being bullied across the board in any way that the government thinks is possible. SR: And the latest episode in the series of attacks against universities and their leadership took place on Easter, when charges were brought against the rector of your university. Could you talk about the background to this latest attempt to quell the protests? IP: In its inability to pinpoint student leaders, the government has turned toward the rector of the University of Belgrade. It labeled him the leader of the protests! A very small group of government-influenced students have brought criminal charges against the rector. He was held in the police station for almost three hours, and in the meantime, thousands and thousands of members of the academic community gathered in front of this police station to show their support. After this, the rector was invited by the prime minister for talks, which again implies that the rector is the head of the protest. Being a responsible man, the rector complied and went with two of his vice rectors to this meeting. This meeting didn't bear any fruit and there was a statement issued by the University of Belgrade after this meeting saying that it was an unproductive meeting that did not lead to any constructive dialogue toward the overcoming of the students' requests and demands. One day later the prime minister wants to continue these talks. But there is a second criminal charge brought against the rector, so he had to inform the prime minister that he cannot come to this meeting because he, again, has to report to the police. SR: So, the government seems to be trying to delegitimise the protestors and divide the students by instrumentalising some of them to file a case against the rector of their own university for violating their right to education? How has this tactic by the regime affected the course of the protests? IP: It's clear that the protesting students have a very democratic way of making decisions. And if the majority of the students wanted to stop the blockade, they would vote for this. Students that are cooperating with the government are a very tiny minority, and they're being well rewarded for their efforts allegedly. Meanwhile, the students have realised that there must be a political articulation to their demands. Obviously, the way they set it up as a citizens' and student protest, requiring the system to work according to law and the constitution, is not bearing any results. Their first demand has been that the national broadcasting authority should renew the members of its board because it is this authority that is allowing the national media to support the government and not allowing independent media to be heard at a national level. SR: Mundane, though tragic events can act as a trigger for citizens to mobilise against the rampant corruption of soft authoritarian regimes marked by cronyism and lack of accountability. The courageous Serbian students have shown that principled commitment to the cause of democracy combined with creativity and the refusal to compromise on ideals can be a formidable weapon of the weak against even a well-entrenched regime and its repressive apparatus. It remains to be seen whether students, professors and other social groups that have stood with them, including schoolteachers, lawyers and farmers, will have enough strength to resist economic pressures, punitive measures and state violence. Opposition parties' involvement in fresh elections remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: by choosing solidarity and tenacity over submission and apathy, the Serbian protestors have rekindled the utopian spirit of radical democracy in an age when many have thought it had been snuffed out by soft authoritarian rulers using a mix of legal measures and police brutality.
