In this essay, I explore the relationship between the politics of the production of knowledge and partisan attempts to interfere with it. I argue that, despite changing historical contexts, the line between this politics (understood as contests about meaning and power) and partisanship has never been secured. That is because there is a tension inherent in knowledge production that cannot be resolved by legislation, administrative fiat, or academic punditry. Academic freedom mediates the tension but does not resolve it because knowledge production is inherently critical of prevailing norms (whether in the sciences, social sciences, or humanities)—norms whose partisans seek to defend their integrity and their truth. The tension between politics and partisanship is the state (or the fate) of democratic higher education in America.

At a time when equalizing measures like affirmative action are being challenged, a women’s university is uplifting the most neglected and defenseless populations in Bangladesh. Yet the Asian University for Women (AUW) faces additional challenges in providing excellent higher education. This essay discusses how AUW also confronts mounting pernicious state control of education by transforming state-university relationships, and how, despite resurfacing nationalism and parochialism, it advocates for regional collaboration in its student body. In a conflict-ridden world, it marshals political, financial, and diplomatic prowess to provide a liberating pathway to those marooned in conflict. While fostering equality through its undergraduate and graduate programs, AUW has raised an age-old question concerning a university’s function in an unjust, violence-prone, and divided world. Its answer: the best institutions embrace disadvantaged members of society through education aimed at emancipating those under the yoke of oppression.

The U.S. Supreme Court increasingly leverages a rigid interpretation of the Free Speech Clause to strike regulations that address campaign financing, health care warnings, tax disclosures, collective bargaining agreements, and consumer protections. History has become little more than a slogan that the majority periodically invokes but seldom accurately evaluates. That lack of nuance augments the justices’ authority to articulate absolutist-sounding rules to the detriment of legislatures’ exercise of traditional governmental functions. Jurists would do better to rely on a more proportionate and less categorical approach to decide whether laws impose direct or peripheral burdens on communications. The level of safeguards enjoyed by expressions should be gauged by their value to political self-determination, personal development, or informational contribution. The degree of protections that speech enjoys should be balanced against countervailing government interests, alternatives available to speakers, fit between law and public ends, and relevant history.