In this post I attempt to shine a light on some of the problems scholarly societies and academic institutions face in the current political climate.

Scholarly societies exist to serve their communities: one way they do this is through advocacy. However, they also need to generate revenues to perform these functions. This can create tension. Scholarly societies must negotiate a balance between their missions and advocacy. For many of us, these are deeply intertwined. Some in our communities see little room for embracing politics, or indeed issues of enabling inclusion and diversity in serving the research and education mission of a society. This is tricky. In the current political climate, it is up to a society to ensure the interests of all its members, and the wider community are served – by nature this is an inclusive statement. How do we strike a balance between standing up for what is right and still being able to serve our community?

At the American Mathematical Society (AMS), our strategy has been to take a positive approach, creating the AMS Backstop Grants. These grants are designed to mitigate challenges of recent federal cuts and grant cancellations – a one-time source of financial relief for organizations in the mathematical sciences in need.

A recent story caught my attention.

In early 2025 the University of Kentucky was investigated by the then Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (since dismantled). They were not alone; indeed, the University of Kentucky was amongst 50 universities being scrutinized for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. The trigger for the University of Kentucky investigation was its relationship with the Ph.D. Project. The University had participated in the Project’s annual conference, which explicitly aimed to support underrepresented minority students earning doctoral degrees in business. (While The PhD Project is still active, it has since issued a new mission statement, defining a broader approach to its work and removing references to DEI.)

In December of 2025 the University of Kentucky wrote to the Office of Civil Rights explaining the University’s response to the ongoing investigations. I enclose the letter here – it makes for sobering reading.

In essence the University of Kentucky describes the steps it took to:

“… identify all memberships or partnerships with external organizations that may restrict participation based on race in the organization or any of the organization’s programming in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”.

The result of all this was a comprehensive review of all external organizational relationships across the University. 1,200 memberships and partnerships were flagged for cancellation or deeper review to see if these organizations were restricting participation based on race.

The result of this work is stark. The University of Kentucky has terminated memberships or partnerships with over 1,200 organizations, maintaining some 400 others deemed essential to the University’s operations. These essential organizations are mostly those required for accreditation, certification or other essential operational needs. I encourage you to look at the letter. At the end of the letter there are many scholarly societies listed, with my organization among them.

It is not entirely clear to me what the material effect may be. It seems as if this means that faculty will not be able to use institutional funds for membership or article processing charges, or to travel to conferences or participate in activities held by these organizations.

Are there implications for purchasing publications from these organizations? Perhaps this will become clearer as this initiative progresses, and if readers have answers it would be useful to hear more from you.

This fascinating article from November 2025 in the Kentucky Kernel (the non-profit, student-run newspaper for the University of Kentucky) entitled Anti-DEI compliance continues across campus: written policy is hard to come by, is worth a read.

For scholarly societies, the pressures are significant, both in terms of the business of revenue generation, especially for those that rely on publications as a major source of revenue, and from a political perspective. Faculty are increasingly limited in freedom of speech and thought. Should scholarly societies be the guardians of these freedoms on behalf their communities?

How may we continue to serve our communities in research and education? How best to advocate for funding? Is it possible to tread a political fault line standing by our academic and professional communities to serve our society missions?

Looking to the University of Kentucky’s response we can see not only the effects on the faculty and students of the institution succumbing to political influence, but on all those who partner with it.

Thoughts?