Why Professionals and Academics Need to Speak Out

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”—Carl Sagan, world-renowned scientist.

The assault on democracy in the United States should evoke serious concern among Americans and people around the globe. However, there has yet to be a groundswell of American professionals and academics speaking out, and a large portion of the American public is silent in the current slide into an autocratic state.

The humanitarian crises resulting from the conflict in Gaza, climate change disasters, and the political turmoil in the United States and its allies have highlighted the urgent need for professionals to speak out against the injustices they encounter.

A pressing question emerges in the dynamic social and professional discourse landscape: Should professionals and academics vocalize their perspectives on societal injustices? This article emphatically answers, “Yes!”

Far too many professionals remain disturbingly silent in the face of clear wrongdoings. As I have observed and personally experienced, expressing your views on social issues like war, climate change, income inequality, and toxic masculinity, particularly on platforms like LinkedIn, elicits a mix of criticism and support. However, the importance of “speaking truth to power” cannot be overstated. Silence, especially in the face of injustice, is not just morally questionable; it’s a relinquishment of responsibility.

The role of professionals and academics is at a crossroads. Remaining silent or confining their voice to their specific field risks losing relevance and public trust. My article,?“The War on Expertise and Anti-Intellectualism in America,”?underscores this dilemma. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed a critical flaw in American democracy: a growing disdain for expertise and rampant anti-intellectualism. The sweeping changes ushered in by the Trump administration are exacerbating this problem. This phenomenon is not new; it has deep roots in American culture, setting it apart from other Western nations.

Trump Presents a Clear and Present Danger to American Democracy

Donald Trump’s actions to concentrate power in the presidency and operate with autocratic tendencies encompass a series of strategic moves aimed at expanding executive authority, undermining traditional checks and balances, and consolidating control over federal agencies and the judiciary. Key actions include:

1.???? Expansion of Executive Authority

·????? Invoking the Unitary Executive Theory: Trump’s administration has embraced an expansive interpretation of presidential power, asserting that the president possesses absolute authority over the executive branch. This perspective challenges the traditional separation of powers and has been used to justify actions that bypass congressional oversight.

·????? Issuance of Executive Orders: In his second term, Trump signed a record number of executive orders aimed at centralizing power. Notably, Executive Order 14215, titled “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” mandates that independent federal agencies submit significant regulations for White House review, effectively placing them under direct presidential control.?

2.???? Undermining Judicial Independence

·????? Defiance of Court Orders: The administration has exhibited a pattern of non-compliance with judicial rulings that counter its policies. For instance, after federal judges ordered the reversal of funding freezes imposed by the administration, Trump’s failure to comply raised concerns about a potential constitutional crisis and the erosion of the rule of law.?

·????? Attacks on the Judiciary: Trump and his allies have publicly criticized judges who rule against the administration, labeling them as “judicial activists” and suggesting measures such as impeachment. This rhetoric undermines public confidence in the judiciary and threatens its role as an independent arbiter.?

3.???? Politicization of Federal Agencies

·????? Implementation of Schedule F: The administration has sought to reintroduce Schedule F, a classification that would strip civil service protections from thousands of federal employees, allowing for their replacement with political loyalists. This move threatens to transform a merit-based civil service into a system driven by political allegiance.?

·????? Targeting Independent Agencies: Through executive actions, Trump has attempted to bring independent regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), under direct presidential control, compromising their autonomy and impartiality.?

4.???? Erosion of Legislative Oversight

·????? Impoundment of Funds: The administration has proposed reviving the practice of impoundment, in which the president refuses to spend funds appropriated by Congress. This would challenge the legislative branch’s power of the purse and disrupt the balance of power established by the Constitution.?

·????? Non-Compliance with Congressional Subpoenas: The administration has ignored or challenged congressional subpoenas in some instances, hindering legislative oversight and accountability mechanisms essential to a functioning democracy.

5.???? Militarization of Domestic Policy

·????? Consideration of the Insurrection Act: Reports indicate that Trump has contemplated invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement purposes, a move that could lead to the declaration of martial law and suppress civil liberties.?

·????? ?Pardoning of Allies: The mass pardoning of individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol attack, including those who violently assaulted law enforcement officers, signals a disregard for the rule of law and an attempt to solidify support among extremist factions.?

6.???? Giving Enormous Power to an Unelected Outsider Without Congressional Approval

·????? Elon Musk is officially a Special Government Employee (SGE) who, according to regulations, can only work for 130 days in a year. He apparently has been given the responsibility to oversee the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is an initiative established by Trump aimed at reducing federal spending and enhancing governmental efficiency.

·????? Musk is the senior advisor to lead DOGE. However, Musk’s exact authority has been a subject of legal and political debate. Officially, his role is advisory, providing recommendations on efficiency improvements.

·????? Despite Musk’s prominent involvement, the formal head administrator of DOGE is Amy Gleason, who serves as the administrator of the United States DOGE Service. She reports directly to the White House Chief of Staff. But Musk reports directly to Trump.

·????? Conflict has developed between Musk and Trump’s Cabinet members over authority and initiatives.

·????? Musk’s position was created by Presidential Executive Order; he was not confirmed by the Senate or appointed in the usual way for government employees.

·????? By December 2024, Musk had contributed approximately $277 million to Trump’s re-election campaign.

7.???? Initiating an Aggressive Foreign Policy

·????? Starting a tariff trade war with the U.S.’s closest allies Canada and Mexico.

·????? Threatening to annex Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal.

·????? Threatening to turn Gaza into a resort destination.

·????? Threatening to withdraw from the NATO alliance.

·????? Issued ultimatums to Iran regarding its nuclear program, threatening military action if Iran continues its nuclear ambitions.?

8.???? Dehumanizing Opponents and Critics

·????? Use of ‘Vermin’: In 2023, Trump referred to his political adversaries as “vermin,” stating: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.”?

·????? ‘Poisoning the Blood’: Trump has stated that undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” a phrase echoing Nazi rhetoric regarding racial purity.

·????? Comments on Hitler: Former Chief of Staff John Kelly reported that Trump remarked, “You know, Hitler did some good things, too,” indicating a troubling perspective on a dictator responsible for immense atrocities.

·????? ‘Good Genes’: Trump has praised his predominantly white MAGA audiences by saying, “You have good genes,” invoking notions aligned with eugenics and white supremacist ideology. Trump says that, among others, there are three groups that are making America not-great:?immigrants,?people with disabilities, and people who are committed to?diversity, equity and inclusion?policies. Trump’s?repeated?and countless comments?about white people’s racial superiority to people of color have prompted?some comparisons to the Nazis?and their ideology of racial superiority.?

·????? “Animals” and “Predators”: Trump has referred to undocumented immigrants as “animals,” “monsters,” “vile animals,” “savages,” and “predators,” claiming they “rape, pillage, thieve, plunder and kill” American citizens.?

·????? “Shithole Countries”: In a 2018 meeting discussing immigration, Trump reportedly referred to African nations as “shithole countries,” expressing a preference for immigrants from countries like Norway.?

·????? Violent Threats to Those That Criticize Him. In September 2023, Trump suggested that General Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for treason.?????

·????? “Go Back” Tweets: In July 2019, Trump tweeted that four congresswomen of color, known as “The Squad,” should “go back” to their countries, despite all being U.S. citizens and three being born in the United States.

·????? Prosecution Promises: Trump has vowed to direct the Justice Department to investigate and arrest political rivals, including President Joe Biden, and has called for the indictment of members of the January 6 Committee.?

·????? Revocation of Security Clearances: Upon his re-election in January 2025, Trump revoked the security clearances of 50 officials who had criticized him, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.?

·????? Media License Revocation Threats: Trump has threatened to revoke the licenses of media outlets producing unfavorable coverage and has suggested jailing reporters who refuse to disclose their sources.?

·????? Ignoring Judicial Orders. Trump has ignored the judicial orders and judgments handed down in two instances.

These actions collectively illustrate a concerted effort to consolidate power within the executive branch, undermine institutional checks and balances, and advance toward autocratic governance. The implications for American democracy are significant, necessitating vigilant oversight and a robust defense of constitutional principles.

How Professionals Are Losing Their Relevance

Professionals and academics risk becoming irrelevant if they think their voices should be limited solely to their specific fields or endeavors, instead of engaging in critical social issues and participating in policy debates. Currently, they are facing backlash from the public, who are increasingly disillusioned with these professionals and academics.

In presidential press conferences, major news outlets’ shows, and articles in both mainstream and social media, the conclusions and perspectives of scientific experts on issues related to COVID, climate change, and economic equality are not only challenged by commentators who lack scientific expertise, but they also fail to provide any evidence for their claims. Worse, an argumentative equivalency is often presented to viewers and readers, suggesting that opinions (often uninformed) hold equal weight to expert views backed by scientific evidence. This anti-expert, anti-intellectualism has a long history in America, setting it apart from other Western countries.

According to a recent 2019 Pew Survey, 58% of American Republicans believe that universities and colleges negatively affect the country — a 21% increase since 2015. This growing mistrust of education aligns with a general skepticism towards experts, as universities are perceived to be staffed by expert professors and are viewed as institutions where experts are developed through education. However, changes in educational approaches over the last generation have caused many to question whether universities provide positive contributions, whether they genuinely create experts, and whether the experts associated with universities can be trusted.

As Pew noted, “this shift in opinion has occurred across most demographic and ideological groups within the GOP. The poll found that positive views of colleges among Republicans under 50 fell by 21 percentage points from 2015 to 2019. While Republican views of colleges and universities remained largely consistent throughout much of the Obama administration, 65 percent of self-identified conservatives now believe that colleges and universities harm the country. Positive views of colleges decreased even among Republicans with a college or graduate degree, declining by 11 percentage points over the last two years. “

Andrew J. Hoffman, of the University of Michigan, cites a?Pew Research Center study in his article for The Conversation, which reports, “Eighty-seven percent of scientists accept that natural selection plays a role in evolution, while only thirty-two percent of the public agrees; eighty-eight percent of scientists think that genetically modified foods are safe to eat, compared to thirty-seven percent of the public; and eighty-seven percent of scientists believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity, but only fifty percent of the public agrees.”

Hoffman notes that this should be a cause for concern: “In our increasingly technological world, issues such as nanotechnology, stem cell research, nuclear power, climate change, vaccines and autism, genetically modified organisms, gun control, healthcare, and disruption require thoughtful and informed debate. However, these and other issues have often become entangled in the so-called?culture wars. For this reason, surveys indicate that many academics do not view it as their role to be’ enablers of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, ' nor do they believe there are personal benefits to engaging in these activities. Consequently, we remain focused on our research communities and disconnected from the significant public and political debates surrounding us.”

The Decline of Democracies

The fabric of democracy is unraveling. Globally, the governance landscape is alarmingly shifting away from democratic ideals. A sobering reality emerges from various global indices: the number of nations?classified as fully democratic has plummeted over the last two decades. This decline isn’t merely a statistical anomaly; it’s a deepening trend. Signs indicate this trend shows no signs of abating suggest that more countries became authoritarian in 2022 than in any year since 1990. If the current pace of democratic decline continues,?less than 5%?of the world’s population will live in a full democracy by 2026.

?

?

The implications of this shift extend beyond national borders. Autocratic regimes are more likely to stoke conflicts, propagate disinformation, and launch cross-border cyber assaults. These actions not only undermine international relations; they pose a direct threat to the very essence of democratic existence. In this context, the call to speak up against injustice is not just a moral duty; it is a crucial defense in safeguarding democratic values and ensuring that the voices of freedom and justice resonate in an ever-changing world.

?

The Bystander Effect

The bystander effect, also known as bystander apathy, is a social psychological theory suggesting that individuals are less likely to assist a victim when other people are nearby. When a single person is asked to complete a task alone, their sense of responsibility is strong, and they tend to respond positively; however, when a group is required to work on the task together, each individual often feels a diminished sense of responsibility and may withdraw when confronted with challenges or obligations.

As Elie Wiesel, a Romanian-born American writer, professor, political activist, Nobel laureate, and Holocaust survivor, states: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. At times, we must intervene. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is jeopardized, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever individuals are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, that place must — at that moment — become the center of the universe.”

After WWII, many ordinary Germans and Europeans who aided the Nazis claimed they were “not involved” — essentially, they were “bystanders.” However, refusing to take any responsibility for what happened obscures the reality of involvement from people at all levels of German society and beyond. Many bystanders who approved of or tolerated what they witnessed were also complicit.

Martin Niem?ller, a prominent German Lutheran pastor during the 1920s and 1930s, encapsulated the concept when he wrote, “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Speaking Out Against Authoritarianism

In my article, The Rise of American Authoritarianism, I describe how the rise of authoritarianism and the erosion of democracy in America pose a clear and present danger to democracy, with implications for the entire world, and emphasize the need for people to speak out about it. I argue, “There are disturbing signs that America’s strength as a democracy has weakened, due to significant support for authoritarianism and the autocratic leadership of President Donald Trump. While we often think of autocratic states and dictatorships emerging from sudden and violent revolutions, they can instead develop slowly, with changes frequently going unnoticed or not being serious enough to spur concerted citizen action.”

?Matthew C. MacWilliams, founder of a political communications firm and author of?On Fascism: 12 Lessons from American History, published a comprehensive examination of authoritarianism in America and conducted four national panel surveys before the 2016 Presidential election. He discovered that “approximately 18 percent of Americans are highly disposed to authoritarianism, based on their responses to four simple survey questions utilized by social scientists to estimate this disposition. An additional 23 percent are just one step below them on the authoritarian scale. This accounts for roughly 40 percent of Americans who favor authority, obedience, and uniformity over freedom, independence, and diversity.”

A study employed Bob Altemeyer’s definition and scoring system of right-wing authoritarianism, which characterizes it as a “desire to submit to authority, aggression directed against those the authority targets, and a wish for everyone to adhere to the norms and social conventions dictated by that authority.”

RWA index.?Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was measured using the RWA scale utilized in?Monmouth’s research, and developed by Bob Altemeyer.

This results in the following proportions of respondents from each country that fall into the high or low categories.

Table 1. Percentage of respondents categorized as High or Low RWA, by country.

?

?

Political scientist David B. Hill of Hill Research Consultants?conducted an online and telephone poll of?1,000 American voters. A series of 21 agree-or-disagree questions aimed at gauging support for or opposition to authoritarianism were posed to the respondents. The outcomes were then weighted to reflect national demographics. Nearly half of the respondents (49 percent) agreed with the statement, “Once our leaders give us the go-ahead, it will be the duty of every patriotic citizen to assist in rooting out the decadence that is poisoning our country from within. “

More than half (56%) agreed with the statement that “returning to our traditional values, appointing a strong leader in office, and quieting the troublemakers spreading radical views is the only way for our country to overcome the upcoming crisis.”

Research conducted by?Bright Line Watch, the organization that hosted the Yale conference on democracy, reveals that Americans are not as dedicated to democracy as one might expect. Another surprising finding indicates that many Americans are open to considering “alternatives” to democracy. In 1995, for instance, one in 16 Americans supported military rule; by 2016, that figure had risen to one in six. According to another survey referenced at the Yale conference, 18 percent of Americans believe a military-led government is a “fairly good” idea.

“Remaking Partisan Politics through Authoritarian Sorting, “ a book by political scientists Christopher Federico, Stanley Feldman, and Christopher Weber, examines authoritarianism in America. The authors found that in 1992, sixty-two percent of white voters who ranked highest on the authoritarian scale supported George H.W. Bush. By 2016, 86 percent of the most authoritarian white voters backed Trump, an increase of 24 percent.

A poll conducted by the American Enterprise Institute’s Survey Center on American Life?found?that nearly 40 percent of Republicans agreed that “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.”

The Public Religion Research Institute found that 30 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement: “Because things have gotten so far off-track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country.”

The broader global picture is even more alarming. Rather than being an exception, Trump reflects, amplifies, and moves toward authoritarian, totalitarian, dictatorial, nationalistic, and majoritarian forms of right-wing governance based on religion, ethnicity, and culture. He even unapologetically referred to himself as a “king.”

Should Business Leaders Speak Out?

Ipsos, a professional organization which employs 18,000 people and conducts research programs in more than 100 countries, published a report titled?Navigating Social Issues: When and How to Speak Out.?The key findings of the report were:

·????? Three in ten people around the world trust business leaders to tell the truth, according to Ipsos Global Trustworthiness Monitor.

·????? Reliability, transparency, and behaving responsibly are the most significant drivers of trust in organizations globally.

·????? Mobilizing stakeholders around an authentic, shared goal is critical to avoid the perception of empty promises and corporate purpose-washing.

In 2023, corporate leaders are discovering that “taking a stand” on various issues is a high-stakes game. Opting to remain silent on one issue or overreaching on another can provoke more than just a negative media cycle, frequently leading to increased regulatory risk, loss of sales, and even depreciation of market capitalization.

The Ipsos Reputation Council, an annual study of global communications and corporate affairs leaders examining key issues and trends in reputation management, emphasized the pressing demand for businesses to assume a societal role beyond merely managing the bottom line.

Deloitte’s?2018 study of global human capital trends, “The Rise of the Social Enterprise,” interviewed many CEOs and found them in a quandary about taking a position on social issues. Times have changed since then. Edelman’s current research found that?56% of consumers have no respect?for CEOs who remain silent on social issues.

Similarly, a study by?BrandFog?and Susan McPherson, in their?CEO Speak Out study,?found that 64% of consumers say CEOs should take social-issue positions:

·????? Ninety-three percent of buyers agree that when CEOs speak out about social issues they agree with, they are more likely to buy more from that company.

·????? Eighty-two percent believe that, as an employee, it is important for them to understand their CEO’s stance on social issues such as women’s reproductive rights, gun control, immigration policy, economic inequality, racial discrimination, and LGBTQ rights.

·????? Eighty-six percent believe CEOs who defend people’s rights demonstrate great leadership.

Paul A. Argenti, writing in?Harvard Business Review?about leaders speaking out on social issues, states, “Over the last four years, companies have faced pressure from their constituencies — employees, customers, investors, and the communities in which they operate — to take a public stand on prominent political and social movements.”

A report by FTI Consulting, one of the largest business advisory firms in the world, concluded that companies are becoming polarized as opposing points of view clash. CEOs may find themselves caught in the middle, unsure how to engage in social issues or remaining bystanders saying nothing. In the FTI Consulting report titled?CEO Leadership Redefined, FTI found significant generational differences in whether people expect business leaders to take public stances on controversial social and political issues. “Many CEOs may not yet grasp that their under-40 employees likely expect them to address these issues head-on,” the report states. “In fact, half of both millennials and Democrats even go so far as to say that they would not work for a CEO with differing political views.”

Moral Courage

We all encounter daily incidents and unjust, cruel, and destructive events in the news and social media. Having the moral courage to speak out can make a difference. Julia Sasse, a professor of general psychology and media effects at the Applied University Ansbach and an affiliated researcher at the Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence, argues?in her article?in the University of California’s Greater Good Science Center that “morally courageous individuals can become a protective force for others, a catalyst for social change, and an inspiration for many, thereby making a crucial contribution to the greater good. Against this backdrop, we hope for a society where many people demonstrate moral courage. However, moral courage is relatively rare. We can probably all recall reports of violent fights, sexual harassment, or racist attacks where no one intervened, or perhaps we have found ourselves in such situations and remained inactive.”?Studies assessing morally courageous behavior?find that only about 20% of participants who witness wrongdoings intervene against them, she adds.

Sasse concludes by stating, “Every person can strive to become more morally courageous. However, this endeavor does not need to be a solitary effort. Instead, institutions like schools, companies, or social media platforms play a crucial role.”

What Can Happen If We Don’t Speak Truth to Power

Much has been said about how the decline in democracy can slide into authoritarianism and dictatorship, as has previously occurred in history, most notably in Nazi Germany. While it wouldn’t be accurate to establish an exact parallel between the current developments in the U.S. and those of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, there are some troublesome echoes. As I described in my article “The Rise of Authoritarianism and Autocracy in the United States-Part Two,” “We might consider President Trump’s actions not qualifying as those that would abruptly transform the country into an autocratic or fascist state; however, such a transformation can occur gradually and through legal methods. I also want to emphasize that no simple definition adequately captures what’s happening in the U.S. There are clear elements of an autocratic Trump aiming to lead the country, but there are also signs that indicate a growing oligarchic influence and control by billionaires and large corporations working in concert with Trump. Finally, while there are some parallels between the situation in the U.S. and what occurred in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, it’s not exactly the same. Experts argue that neoliberal capitalism and the emphasis on individualism have been driving forces behind those oligarchic and neofascist traits.”

?Whether the current American president has become a king, particularly after the?sweeping grant of immunity in 2024 by the Supreme Court?and the seeming?acquiescence by Congress to Trump’s latest directives, remains up for debate.?

In 2019, Trump said, “And then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to?do whatever I want as President.”

?Yet for the most part, Congress as an institution?has mostly remained silent?as the executive branch invades its sphere of authority.

Not Speaking Out: A Comparison

For the most part, academics and professionals in Germany remained silent or even supported Hitler’s rise, though there were exceptions. Several factors contributed to this silence or complicity. Many professionals and academics have been silent about the anti-democratic actions of Trump.

1.???? Fear and Repression

·????? The Nazi regime swiftly silenced dissent through intimidation, arrests, and purges. The?Gestapo?and?SS?targeted intellectuals, academics, and professionals who opposed the regime. After Hitler came to power in 1933, many outspoken critics were arrested, sent to?concentration camps, or forced into exile.

·????? Many existing civil or military service personnel from the Biden and previous administrations whom Trump has identified as critics or not loyal are fired from their jobs, and some are threatened. According to CNN, politically motivated threats to public officials have increased 178% during Trump’s presidency, the vast majority aimed at Democratic lawmakers.

·????? Speaking out against Trumpism can result in professional and personal consequences, including harassment, loss of funding, or even threats. Many academics, particularly in states with strong conservative influences, risk alienation or career damage.

2.???? Career and Institutional Pressures

·????? Many German intellectuals pre-emptively remained silent or even endorsed Nazi ideology to protect their careers. This compliance of Germany’s educated elite, whether stemming from fear or opportunism, paved the way for Hitler’s unchecked rule. Even before the Nazis seized full power, a significant portion of German academia had aligned with authoritarian nationalism – during World War I, 450 professors signed a public statement applauding Germany’s war aims, and in the Weimar years, very few scholars or judges supported the fledgling democratic government.

·????? Universities and research institutions were "Nazified"—Jewish professors were dismissed, and academics were required to pledge loyalty to Hitler. Those who spoke out risked?losing their positions, careers, and social standing. Those who resisted were often purged – for instance, in 1933 alone, more than 250 Jewish professors and staff were fired from Berlin’s universities as the Nazis “cleansed” institutions of undesirable elements.

·????? The Trump administration has threatened universities, colleges, and their faculty who have openly criticized him or opposed his policies and agenda by withdrawing or threatening to withdraw funding (see Columbia University).

·????? University administrators have warned faculty and students to avoid controversial free speech demonstrations and go out of their way to avoid political controversy.

·????? In an era where university funding and appointments are increasingly politicized, professors and professionals might fear losing tenure opportunities, grants, or institutional support.

·????? Some professionals believe their role is?to inform, not advocate, and thus avoid taking strong public positions and claim they are neutral in their political views.

·????? A concern raised by many who have spoken out is that America’s professional elites might respond as German conservatives did in the 1930s – either by thinking they can “manage” the authoritarian upstart or by staying quiet to protect their positions, only to find that the entire democratic system later collapses. Indeed, a 2021 Foreign Policy?analysis of Weimar Germany stressed that it was “fatal” for mainstream conservatives and elites to believe they could harness or ignore the Nazi movement; by the time they realized their error, it was too late.

3.???? Nationalism and Support for the Regime

·????? Many academics and professionals, especially in fields like?law, economics, and medicine,?believed in Hitler’s vision—particularly his restoration of German power, economic recovery, and anti-communism.

·????? The Nazis also?funded scientific research, particularly in fields like eugenics, which some professionals enthusiastically supported.

4.???? Apathy or Political Disengagement

·????? Many professionals and intellectuals were?not politically engaged?or saw Hitler as a temporary phenomenon they could tolerate. Many Germans believed that?politics was not their concern?and focused on their work.

·????? Yale University: In November 2024, Yale announced it would cease issuing statements on political, social, or public matters, except in rare cases, to uphold institutional neutrality. This decision aimed to avoid marginalizing community members by refraining from selective commentary that might overlook certainconcerns while addressing others. ?

·????? Harvard University and University of Michigan: Amid student protests and global conflicts, these universities have embraced institutional neutrality policies to remain apolitical on contentious issues. This approach seeks to preserve academic freedom and prevent the institution from taking sides in divisive debates.

·????? The University of Chicago’s Kalven Report has been influential in shaping institutional neutrality policies. The report asserts that the university should remain neutral on social and political issues to protect academic freedom and prevent the institution from being used as a platform for partisan interests. This principle has been cited by other universities adopting similar neutrality stances.?

5.???? A Gradual and Systematic Erosion of Democratic Norms

·????? Many people in Nazi Germany didn’t recognize authoritarianism while was happening because it was happening within Germany’s democratic institutions.

·????? The normal “guardrails” of democratic structures in the United States, such as Congress and the Supreme Court, have facilitated or supported Trump’s authoritarian actions as reflected in running much of the government by Presidential Executive Orders.

·????? Because Trump was elected through?democratic means, some assume the system will "self-correct," ignoring the erosion of democratic norms (e.g., election denialism, attacks on the press, judicial manipulation).

6.???? Media and Disinformation Challenges

·????? Before the Nazi takeover, Germany had a diverse and free press. Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) used a calculated strategy to attack, manipulate, and ultimately control the German media. This process occurred in three key stages: Discrediting and attacking the Free Press (Early 1920s – 1933), legal and violent suppression of media (1933 – 1934), total Control and Propaganda (1934 – 1945). By eliminating press freedom, Hitler ensured that Germans only saw, heard, and believed Nazi ideology, making it easier to manipulate the population and sustain his dictatorship.

·????? Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister controlled radio, film, newspapers, and books.

·????? The Nazis produced films and radio programs glorifying Hitler and demonizing Jews.

·????? Cheap radios (“People’s Receivers”) were mass-produced, so Germans could only listen to Nazi-approved broadcasts.

·????? Nazi-controlled foreign language media spread disinformation in other countries.

·????? Media Editors were forced to publish only Nazi-approved or supportive news.

·????? Books deemed “un-German” were publicly burned and removed from libraries, including works by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, and Mark Twain.

·????? During his presidency, Donald Trump employed various strategies to control and intimidate the press and media. Trump frequently labeled news outlets as "fake news" and referred to journalists as "enemies of the people." This rhetoric aimed to undermine the credibility of the media and create distrust among his supporters. His administration was known for selectively granting access to journalists, often favoring friendly outlets while excluding critical ones. This created an environment where only certain narratives were promoted.

·????? Trump has launched and threatened lawsuits against media organizations for reporting they deemed inaccurate or damaging. This tactic aimed to intimidate journalists and discourage critical reporting. He often uses social media, particularly Twitter, and Truth Social to attack specific journalists and media figures, amplifying his followers' negative sentiments towards them.

·????? During press conferences, Trump sometimes belittles or confronts journalists who asked challenging questions, creating a hostile atmosphere that could deter further scrutiny. His administration was criticized for limiting the availability of information and promoting less transparency in government communications, which further restricted journalistic inquiry.

·????? Trump frequently encourages his supporters to consume news from conservative outlets as FOX News, that align with his views, undermining other mainstream media.

7.???? The Normalization of Authoritarian Tendencies

·????? Just as many Germans dismissed Hitler's rhetoric as?"just politics" or entertainment, some today view Trump’s?authoritarian behavior as mere political theater?rather than a real threat.

·????? Many Germans experienced improved material conditions and ignored or rationalized darker aspects of Nazism.

·????? The phenomena of “gradualism” developed in Nazi Germany: Changes happened step by step rather than all at once. Each new restriction or policy seemed like a small adjustment to the previous one; What seemed extreme in 1933 became the new normal by 1934, allowing for even more extreme measures to be introduced; Just as a frog reportedly doesn't jump out of gradually heating water, Germans adapted to gradually increasing authoritarianism without recognizing the full transformation.

·????? Public displays of loyalty to Hitler and the Nazi Party influenced the German populace. Ordinary Germans displayed Nazi flags, offered Hitler salutes, and participated in rallies to signify their compliance. Those who refrained from participating risked social ostracism and suspicion.

·????? Most Germans did not need to actively support atrocities; they merely had to adapt to each new level of authoritarian control without resistance, concentrating on their personal benefits while ignoring or justifying the costs borne by others.

·????? Trump’s influence has?become deeply entrenched in American political life, resulting in a sense of?fatigue?among those who might otherwise voice their opinions.

·????? Trump and MAGA use an abundance of flags, “Make America Great” hats and slogans, along with the chant of “USA” at Trump events to create a connection between Trump and patriotism.

·????? Continuous exposure to extreme rhetoric and actions has resulted in public desensitization, causing authoritarian measures to appear more acceptable over time.

8.???? Complacency and Privilege

·????? Many elites in Nazi Germany, such as business leaders and military officials, supported Hitler because he promised stability and potential profit, further entrenching the regime.

·????? After the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic, many business leaders viewed Hitler's policies as a means to restore economic stability.

·????? The Nazi regime's focus on nationalism resonated with many Germans. Business leaders frequently aligned with these sentiments, believing that a strong, unified Germany would foster a favorable environment for their enterprises.\

·????? The rearmament of Germany created significant contracts and opportunities for businesses in sectors such as arms manufacturing and infrastructure, leading many industrialists to support the regime. Some businesses actively collaborated with the Nazi government, fostering a symbiotic relationship between the regime and certain sectors of the economy.

·????? Many professionals and academics are in?positions of relative security, meaning they?don’t feel personally threatened?by Trump’s authoritarianism.

·????? The billionaire class and many large corporations have been major supporters of Trump, choosing to forgo any concerns about authoritarianism and the negative impact on American democracy.

·????? After the 2024 election, prominent U.S. media and business leaders rushed to accommodate Trump, a move Snyder criticized as?“textbook anticipatory obedience,”?reminiscent of how elites normalized authoritarian leaders in the past.

Those Who Are Speaking Out

There are a significant number of professionals and academics who are speaking out in opposition to Trump’s authoritarianism and the erosion of American democracy.

·?????? Historian Timothy Snyder?(author of?On Tyranny) has repeatedly warned of Trump’s authoritarianism.

·?????? Ruth Ben-Ghiat?(author of?Strongmen) has detailed Trump’s use of fascist rhetoric and tactics.

·?????? Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, authors of?How Democracies Die, have highlighted the Republican Party’s embrace of authoritarianism.

·?????? Sarah Kendzior in Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America ?contends authoritarian tendencies often manifest gradually rather than suddenly.

·?????? Historian and Journalist Anne Applebaum in Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, argues that once democratic institutions erode, they are difficult to rebuild.

·?????? Tim Alberta in American Carnage: On the Front Lines of the Republican Civil War and the Rise of President Trump describes how Conservative media outlets, including Fox News, Breitbart, and talk radio, played a critical role in amplifying Trump’s messaging and discrediting moderate Republicans.

·?????? “Will we stop Trump before it’s too late?” is the title of an opinion piece by Madeleine Albright, a highly regarded historian by training who served as the US secretary of state from 1997 to 2001.?Fascism: A Warning,?her most recent book, was also released. Donald Trump, whom she refers to in the book as “the first antidemocratic president in modern U.S. history,” is similar to other leaders who have sought to undermine democratic standards, such as Turkey’s Erdogan, Venezuela’s Maduro, and Hungary’s Orbán.

·?????? In 2016, more than 1,900 political scientists – including every former president of the American Political Science Association – signed an open letter warning that Donald Trump’s candidacy posed a?“grave threat”?to American democracy. They broke with the norm of academic neutrality to list specific anti-democratic behaviors by Trump (e.g., encouraging violence at rallies, threatening to jail opponents, casting doubt on elections) and affirmed that their professional commitment to democratic values compelled them to speak out.

·?????? In late 2020,?over 80 historians of fascism and authoritarianism?from around the world issued an open letter warning that American democracy was in?“existential peril,”?regardless of the election outcome.

·?????? In April 2017, the?March for Science?drew an estimated 1.07 million scientists and supporters worldwide (over 100,000 in Washington, D.C. alone) to protest political attacks on facts and expertise.

·?????? 27 psychiatrists and psychologists?contributed to a book?The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, arguing they had a “duty to warn” the public of the president’s dangerous pathology. By 2024,?233 mental health professionals?had signed an open letter (published as a full-page ad in?The New York Times) declaring Trump?“an existential threat to democracy”?due to what they diagnosed as malignant narcissism. In that letter, clinicians wrote that they felt “too much is at stake to be silent any longer,” explicitly warning that Trump’s behavior mirrors that of “history’s most brutal dictators.”

·?????? Scientific American?made its first-ever presidential endorsement in 2020, urging voters to reject Trump in defense of science and democracy.

·?????? A 2023?PRRI national survey found that?57% of Americans overall?agreed that Trump’s re-election would be a?“threat to American democracy and the American way of life.”?This view was most pronounced among those with postgraduate education and in fields like law, academia, and medicine.

·?????? Another study surveyed members of the?American Historical Association?and found strong agreement that Trump’s presidency had?“clear fascist parallels.”

Where Should Your Voice Be Heard?

While there are many choices regarding where one can speak out, it’s clear from the research that the greatest influence and impact comes from social media such as Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok, and, to a lesser extent, LinkedIn. Some appeal to a broad audience that cuts across social and cultural lines, whereas more professionally targeted audiences like LinkedIn serve a much narrower band. Generally speaking, professionals and academics have less influence on the mass market social media platforms. But that can change.

My Final Argument

Speaking out against injustices, fascism, inequality, violence, racism, misogyny, climate degradation, and authoritarianism is not only a moral imperative but also a practical necessity, especially for professionals. The argument for why people should raise their voices against such societal issues can be structured around several key points:

·????? Silence Means Approval.?It may seem that remaining silent is a way to avoid conflicts and unnecessary drama, but you could be sending the wrong signal. Refusing to speak against injustice can translate to accepting the status quo, which makes you an enabler. Silence is also a form of communication and should not discredit the importance of remaining quiet. Silence is most effective in moments of anger or uncertainty; however, staying silent in the face of injustice only allows it to prevail. A voice can always make a difference. When you remain quiet, people may never acknowledge or recognize your values and desires. As individuals, it is crucial to know when to stay silent and when to speak out. Speak out when it will help others!

·????? You might be the next victim.?If it can happen to anyone, then it can happen to you. When injustice thrives, it erodes all moral thresholds and paves the way for further injustice. Failing to speak out about minor issues exposes your human rights to potential violation in the future. When small problems are frequently ignored, they escalate into larger societal issues. Therefore, if you do not speak out when things are wrong, you may find yourself entangled in the problems you once disregarded.

·????? Historical Responsibility. The lessons from history are clear. In situations where authoritarian regimes have risen to power, a common theme is the silence or complicity of the intellectual and professional classes. The emergence of fascist regimes in the 20th century, for instance, was often facilitated by the passive or active support of academics and professionals who either endorsed those regimes or failed to oppose them. Speaking out against injustices and authoritarian tendencies is not only a moral obligation but also a historical one, aimed at preventing the repetition of some of the darkest chapters in human history.

·????? Safeguarding Democracy and Human Rights. Academics and professionals hold a unique position in society. They are often seen as experts, thought leaders, and moral guides. Their voices carry significant weight and can shape public opinion and policy. By speaking out, they can help protect the principles of democracy, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, and the safeguarding of individual and minority rights. Their silence amid rising authoritarianism can be interpreted as consent, unintentionally legitimizing the erosion of these essential principles.

·????? Ethical and Professional Responsibility.?Many professions are guided by ethical codes that emphasize integrity, truth, and community welfare. For example, the American Psychological Association’s Ethical Principles highlight the importance of protecting the welfare and rights of individuals. Similarly, academics are often committed to truth and the advancement of knowledge for the public good. Speaking out against injustice and authoritarianism aligns with these ethical principles.

·????? Educational Role. Professionals, in particular, play a vital role in educating and shaping the minds of future generations. By standing against fascism, war, authoritarianism, and social injustices, they set a powerful example for their students, demonstrating the significance of civic engagement and moral courage. This endeavor is not merely about imparting knowledge but also about nurturing critical thinking and ethical values in students.

·????? Catalyst for Broader Social Change. Historically, professionals have played crucial roles in social movements advocating for civil rights, environmental protections, and various other social issues. Their involvement lends credibility and can galvanize public support. Speaking out against injustices can spur broader social change, inspiring others to take action.

·????? Global Impact and Solidarity. In our increasingly interconnected world, the actions and voices of American academics and professionals carry substantial global influence. Speaking out against injustices has domestic implications and demonstrates solidarity with those fighting similar issues in other regions of the world.

?Timothy Snyder, author of numerous books, including?On Freedom?and, before that,?On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. In Snyder’s latest book,?On Tyranny, succinctly argues why it’s important to speak out: “Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then they offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.”

Summing Up

Historical comparisons suggest that?professional silence can be a key ingredient in the rise of authoritarianism. Whether professors in 1930s Germany avoided dissent as colleagues were purged or civil servants in modern democracies felt pressured to accommodate an autocratic leader, the pattern is dangerous.?

Scholarly analysis strongly emphasizes resisting this pattern: experts on democracy implore today’s professionals – from academics to judges, journalists, and business leaders – to speak out and act in defense of democratic norms. The historical consensus is clear: When those with knowledge, influence, and moral authority fail to publicly oppose authoritarian threats, these threats can metastasize into a complete dismantling of democracy.

The widespread activism and statements by American academics and professionals against Trump’s movement, as detailed above, can be seen as an encouraging departure from the tragic pattern of acquiescence that marked too many past regimes. Each petition signed, survey conducted, and public warning issued by professionals today represents an effort to?“not be silent”?in the face of authoritarian temptation – a direct response to the lessons learned from history’s darkest chapters.

The call to speak out is more than a moral imperative; it’s a crucial step toward bridging the widening gap between expert knowledge and public opinion. The silence of professionals and academics undermines their relevance and contributes to a society that is increasingly uninformed and divided on critical issues. The time to speak is now, for in the words of Edmund Burke, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

?