The weather sucked (and not just in Minnesota). Once again, our university spring break didn’t line up with the kids’, so my family didn’t get to go anywhere. And my big, make-the-best-of-it plans to catch up on deadlines and past-dues were only partially fulfilled, leaving me as stressed as ever. But enough about me. The worst news of the past week–and the part of spring break that really matters—came out of Congress. This week, it was announced that the Senate had voted to restrict NSF funding for political science research to only those studies that promise to “contribute to military security or economic growth.” Talk about a shock and awe attack.
The measure, adopted in a voice vote, was an amendment to the budget bill that would fund the federal government through the end of September. The House of Representatives must vote on the final package for it to become law, but, since a vote that must take place before March 27 to avoid a government shutdown, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, “[T]here is no reason to believe it will not include the… amendments.”
As the CHE reported, “[T]he vote drew an immediate reaction from the American Political Science Association, which called the ban a ‘devastating blow,’ ‘an exceptionally dangerous slippery slope,’ and a ‘remarkable embarrassment for the world’s exemplary democracy.’ And although this development seems to have come as a surprise to many observers, it probably shouldn’t have. Defunding political science research has long been a rallying point for some Congressional Republications (including the measure’s sponsor, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn).
I’m not quite sure what to do but hope our national social science associations will launch some kind of defense and counter-attack (“military-security” style?). In the meantime, though, there’s less doubt than ever that we mustdo more—much more—to advocate for the public value of social science research. This should be our clarion call.