Zebra finches are chatty. Researchers often study their vocal interactions to better understand the evolution of communication. In fact, Cornell academics are at the cutting edge of this finch research. And since early 2024, Cornell professors have been conducting a study on zebra finches’ ability to pick out different voices in a noisy landscape. Importantly, the project also works to develop an outreach program accessible to those with communication disabilities so they can benefit from the joys of bird song.
This project is what research should be: productive, rigorous, unique and beneficial to the community. But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-T.X.) would vehemently disagree.
Last week, Cruz released a database of over 3,400 research grants that he claims promote “woke” ideology. The Texan listed examples of what he called weaponized, “questionable projects that promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advance neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda.” Among these projects were 22 Cornell grants, including the zebra finch study. By dismissing legitimate research as destructive, ideological propaganda, Cruz kicks sand in the face of academic freedom, an institution that drives society forward. Cornell must resist him.
By stirring up discord, Cruz is clearly trying to score political points without regard for the altruistic benefits that productive research universities like our own contribute to society. He casts a wide net, seemingly ferreting out all grants that include words like “diversity,” “environmental justice,” “race” or “gender” without any consideration of their merits.
Cruz is doing what’s en vogue in today’s Republican party — taking aim at good-faith efforts to improve society by throwing out shiny phrases that manufacture outrage in his political base. Some people call that rage bait. I call it an act of performative politics at the expense of crossing the sovereign line of academic freedom — one that politicians should never touch.
This freedom lets serious academics pursue all avenues of study, performing valuable research into new ideas that may someday benefit society. It doesn’t force ideas on anyone — it generates well-tested ones that the world may use as needed.
Without academic freedom, important research would be constrained. Once politicians have carte blanche to determine which projects have merit and which are “dangerous,” science will move forward along political lines instead of natural ones, stuck in arrested development.
When we look to the past, we can see the detrimental effects of political intervention in science firsthand. In 2001, President George W. Bush, a pro-life Republican, announced his intentions to limit the scope of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Stem cells theoretically have the potential to cure all conditions involving cellular pathology, helping patients suffering from afflictions including Parkinson’s, dementia and diabetes; some people see them as a potential miracle cure. Bush made the decision to restrict funding for these cells by looking to his faith for guidance, informing a scientific decision through his belief in the church.
His partisan decision to constrain funding for this potentially lifesaving treatment led to a decline in American stem cell research output. It made research collaboration with foreign partners exceedingly difficult. And it severely limited the embryonic genetic diversity to which researchers had access. Bush’s decision hindered American scientists in their work toward curing disease and made them hesitant to do so for fear of repercussions. His choice, while much more ethically complicated than Cruz’s, shows how political intervention into science can stifle growth.
Apolitical academic freedom lies at the beating heart of powerhouse research universities like our own. It undoubtedly makes our world a better place through exploration and must stay out of the hands of politicians. But Ted Cruz wants to shut down valuable research just to make a political statement; he doesn’t care about the grants.
So Cornell must firmly stand against the tide.
Last Friday, Cornell leadership made their first public rebuttal to Republican aggression: they reaffirmed opportunity and access, diversity, merit-based decisions and compliance with the law. An email is one thing, but putting words into action is another. When Republicans in Congress overreach and try to meddle in our personal business, Cornell administration must turn to the courts. Because if Ted Cruz thinks zebra finch research is dangerous, there’s no telling what he aims at next.
Henry Schechter is the Opinion Editor at The Sun. He is a third-year student in the College of Arts & Sciences. His fortnightly column Onward focuses on politics, history and how they come together in Ithaca. He can be reached at hschechter@cornellsun.com.
The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: opinion@cornellsun.com.
Henry Schechter '26 is a senior editor on the 143rd Editorial Board and was the opinion editor on the 142nd Editorial Board. He is a Government and American Studies major in the College of Arts & Sciences and an incoming J.D. candidate at Cornell Law School. A native Texan, Henry feels a little out of place in the Ithaca winters. His fortnightly column Onward focuses on politics, history and how they come together in Ithaca. He can be reached at schechter@cornellsun.com.
