The power grids that underlie the work of universities generally remain pretty invisible. But a notable exception occurs in the case of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, a “user facility” for the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science located on the campus of Michigan State University, near where I live. 

The FRIB itself, on the main part of campus, would never catch your eye. It consists of some boring offices along with a mostly-windowless industrial block. The feature of the FRIB you do notice lies on the campus’s south side. Driving by there, you will find acre upon acre of parking lots covered in canopies of photovoltaic panels. 

While the canopies provide commuters a bit of relief from sun and snow, the solar array’s purpose is to feed the literal research machine – to enable scientists from all over the world to obtain “beam time” as they conduct experiments benefitting astrophysics, nuclear medicine, national defense, and industry. Of course, the FRIB’s literal power grid is buttressed not only by its concrete pillars but by the complex cultural and political power grids intertwining federal and state government, private industry, big science, and public support. 

In the last few months, the political power grid of academia has become more visible than ever. Tapping into this moment – and connecting to the theme of Heterodox Academy’s 2025 conference, happening this month – this third issue of inquisitive parses executive-branch power in higher ed as exerted by the current presidential administration, asking how power can be wielded for good or ill in higher education. 

But this issue’s collection also looks at the power wielded by legislatures, courts, intellectual leaders, pedagogical gatekeepers, outspoken students, and individual academics. Our aim in this issue, as always, is not to persuade you of one particular belief but to engage you in the problems faced as we seek greater intellectual freedom. 

To that end, John Tomasi (HxA’s president) imagines what John Stuart Mill and Herbert Marcuse might suggest about dealing with President Trump, Nicole Barbaro Simovski argues that, if we want to stop idea-bans in classrooms, we need to take teaching seriously, Michael Sappol asks us to consider jarred human remains, and Luis Lozano Paredes challenges us to welcome the bots. 

Rik Scarce recounts being jailed for protecting his research subjects, Chelsea Polis shares her experience of being sued for defamation, and Scott Parker considers what led to a student giving him a failing grade at the state capitol.

For our Books section, Ed Santurri asks if Glenn Loury is really telling us all in his tell-all memoir, while our Field Guide brings Pam Sailors escorting us on a tour of the admirable Philosophy of Sport. Finally, taking us back to the McCarthy era, Ben Lovett reminds us of what a great man had to say about rats, including the human variety.

Please do consider subscribing to inquisitive, and don’t forget that you can pitch us your ideas for future issues. (By the way, you can see the print edition of this issue here.)