Liberals may view MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow as something of an intellectual, but her Monday show disproved that notion. If all you did was listen to Maddow, you would come to the conclusion that Trump is waging war on universities simply because he can and not because they have an anti-Semitism problem. The latest development in Trump’s battle with higher education came after Harvard refused to comply with a list of administration demands, resulting in the cutting of over $2 billion. Maddow lauded Harvard for not caving, “I have just one more thing to show you, because this was Saturday in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is home, of course, to the most famous and prestigious university in the whole country, Harvard University. This was a Stand Up Harvard rally that happened in terrible rain and sleet and cold in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Saturday afternoon.”     She continued to wax poetic by claiming, “The theme was effectively courage, not capitulation. People are trying to shore up Harvard to tell them that they've got the gravitas and the weight and the wealth, that if they can't lead, who can, that they should not capitulate to Trump's threats, to Trump's demands, to let him essentially take over and subjugate the universities.” By “subjugate the universities,” Maddow meant that the administration was demanding that the departments most to blame for fanning the flames of anti-Semitism be reviewed and, if necessary, reformed. It also demanded Harvard actually enforce its rules and have a consistent disciplinary system, adopt a merit-based admission policy, and shutter its DEI apparatus (by the school’s own admission, Columbia University’s DEI bureaucracy was a hindrance to addressing anti-Semitism). It is not as if Harvard is the victim. They are currently being sued for failing to stand up to anti-Semitism on campus. Alleged incidents include Harvard employees vandalizing hostage posters, demanding Jewish students debate them on whether or not Jews did 9/11, and posting threatening videos of themselves wielding machetes. Meanwhile, last year’s demonstrations effectively shut down certain areas of campus and were rewarded with meetings and capitulations.   On NewsNation on Tuesday, Shabbos Kestenbaum explained how Harvard ignored all the ways in which he was made to feel unsafe as a Jewish student on campus, pushed to "debate" how Jews caused 9/11. pic.twitter.com/wMJYXaSkjN — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) April 15, 2025   Maddow, of course, mentioned none of this. Instead, she declared of Trump’s move: It has thus far been war on international students, war on academic freedom, war on campus free speech. It's been war on government research funding. It's about to be war on university endowments. And so these people turned out on Saturday in the wind and the cold, one protest among a gazillion. But in this case, they were just telling Harvard, ‘Don’t do it, don’t capitulate. Stand up.’ This was Saturday, and tonight, here's the banner headline in the Boston Globe, quote, ‘Harvard refuses to comply with Trump's demands, says it won't,’ quote, ‘allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.’ But it will allow itself to be taken over by the mob. Here is a transcript for the April 14 show: MSNBC The Rachel Maddow Show 4/14/2025 9:18 PM ET RACHEL MADDOW: I have just one more thing to show you, because this was Saturday in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is home, of course, to the most famous and prestigious university in the whole country, Harvard University. This was a Stand Up Harvard rally that happened in terrible rain and sleet and cold in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Saturday afternoon. The theme was effectively courage, not capitulation. People are trying to shore up Harvard to tell them that they've got the gravitas and the weight and the wealth, that if they can't lead, who can, that they should not capitulate to Trump's threats, to Trump's demands, to let him essentially take over and subjugate the universities. It has thus far been war on international students, war on academic freedom, war on campus free speech. It's been war on government research funding. It's about to be war on university endowments. And so these people turned out on Saturday in the wind and the cold, one protest among a gazillion. But in this case, they were just telling Harvard, "Don’t do it, don’t capitulate. Stand up." This was Saturday, and tonight, here's the banner headline in the Boston Globe, quote, ‘“Harvard refuses to comply with Trump's demands, says it won't,’ quote, ‘allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.’”

A popular Netflix series is causing a stir in the United Kingdom over what should be the proper driving force behind policy change: politicians or pop culture? 

Last week, BBC Breakfast hosts accused Kemi Badenoch, a member of Parliament, of being culturally out of touch for not watching the four-part Netflix series Adolescence. The show, which has become the biggest-ever U.K. Netflix drama, depicts the fictional story of a 13-year-old boy who is accused of stabbing a female classmate to death. Along the way, the show presents potential factors driving his murderous rage, from parental role modeling to cyberbullying and online incel culture. The popularity of the drama has helped catapult the themes of toxic masculinity, misogyny, and smartphone use in schools into the cultural spotlight. 

Since the release, the show's writer, Jack Thorne, has pushed for the series to be shown in Parliament and across schools to spark "radical action" to tackle issues addressed in Adolescence, a sentiment shared by Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

Badenoch, the current leader of the opposition, recently clashed with Starmer after he blocked a bill that would ban the use of cellphones in schools. Starmer believed the policy unnecessary since schools already have the power to ban phones and would prefer to limit what content children can access online from anywhere. Badenoch urged Starmer to change his vote, arguing that only "one in 10 schools are smartphone-free" despite that "evidence already shows that schools that ban phones get better results." 

Given Badenoch's strong position on adolescent smartphone use, it was understandable that the BBC Breakfast interviewers would want to connect her policy agenda to the megapopular Netflix drama. 

During the interview, however, Badenoch explained that she did not plan on watching Adolescence because she had already researched the issues and did not think the fictional show would be a valuable use of her time. Tensions rose when BBC Breakfast presenter Naga Munchetty pushed back and asserted that the show "has made much more of an impact than any politician." Munchetty wanted to know why Badenoch wouldn't want to know "straight from the horse's mouth" what parents are saying about smartphone use. 

The heated exchange left little room for nuance and assumed that adolescent smartphone use is undoubtedly harmful to children. However, the studies around smartphone ownership are a lot more mixed. While some kids may find their anxiety and/or depression symptoms exacerbated by smartphone or social media use, other kids may experience an increase in well-being with smartphone ownership. The data paint a complex picture with no simple answer. Unfortunately, U.K. leaders like Badenoch are battling it out over one-size-fits-all approaches that won't necessarily improve children's well-being.

Of course, a balance between politicians' agendas and cultural concerns is necessary to lead a country. But even in her patronizing way, at least Badenoch takes her job as a member of Parliament seriously and isn't just sitting at home bingeing Netflix.

The post BBC Grills Member of Parliament for Not Watching Enough TV appeared first on Reason.com.