Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

Scope of the suspension

• Discussion centers on federal suspension of UCLA research grants, including a major math institute and Tao’s grant, ostensibly over failure to ensure an environment “free of antisemitism and bias.”
• Many see this as unprecedented collective punishment of an entire research enterprise, bypassing normal due-process tools (investigations, consent decrees, targeted remedies).
• A minority argue the administration is “doing the right thing” by finally enforcing civil-rights law against universities they say have long violated it.

Antisemitism, protests, and civil-rights framing

• One side claims “antisemitism” is being used as a pretext to crack down on liberal universities and pro‑Palestinian speech, and to equate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
• Others point to lawsuits and reports alleging “Jew exclusion zones,” physical blockades, and threats against Jewish students as textbook discrimination; they argue administrators failed their duty to intervene early.
• Skeptics respond that some terms (like “Jew Exclusion Zone”) were litigation framing, that many protesters were themselves Jewish, and that any harassment should be handled by prosecuting individuals, not defunding institutions.
• There is no consensus in the thread on how widespread or severe antisemitic behavior actually was; several call the evidence and media framing “unclear” or one‑sided.

Impact on science and careers

• Many view this as a self‑inflicted wound to US scientific leadership, comparing it to Russian science collapse in the 1990s or a “cultural revolution”–style setback.
• PhD students and early‑career researchers are seen as the most vulnerable: they may be forced out of science altogether or pushed to industry.
• Multiple commenters urge moving to Europe, Canada, China, or Hong Kong; others note that academic funding and freedom there have their own political constraints but are at least more predictable.

Funding, endowments, and who should pay

• Some argue wealthy universities with multibillion‑dollar endowments should self‑fund research instead of depending on federal money; others explain endowments are restricted, yield-limited, and nowhere near enough to replace federal grants.
• Broader debate over whether basic research is a public good that must be state-funded vs something the private sector could support if government stepped back.

Broader politics and authoritarian drift

• Strong current of concern that this is part of a larger project (e.g., “Project 2025/Esther”) to intimidate academia, reshape data‑producing agencies, and entrench authoritarian rule.
• BLS commissioner firing is cited as parallel: some see legitimate statistical criticism; most see a pattern of punishing messengers until only “yes‑men” remain.
• Several emphasize this isn’t “just a few bad actors” but reflects substantial electoral support and a deeper crisis of US democracy.