Constitutional Crisis Debate at Colgate University

Last week, Harvard Professor Michael Kraalman expressed his frustration during a discussion at Colgate University about whether the United States is facing a “constitutional crisis.” His anger seemed palpable as he described the situation.

Taking a strong position, Klerman criticized what he termed “authoritarianism rooted in traditional white hegemony.” He drew unsettling parallels to Nazi Germany, labeling President Donald Trump and his supporters as “fascists.” He referred to “thugs” who manipulate the immigration system, suggesting that these immigrants experience “essential torture” as a form of control.

When Klerman acknowledged the turmoil of our “age of fury,” it resonated with many. “I am furious,” he admitted, emphasizing his desire to convey this anger as a call to awareness about the constitutional system’s failures.

Constitutional Concerns in Academia

Like numerous law professors, Klerman has begun to question the effectiveness of our constitutional framework. However, rather than framing this as a constitutional crisis, he views it more as a crisis of faith in the system.

A column in the New York Times last year criticized the tendency for “constitutional worship,” posing questions about the necessity of the Constitution itself. Some academics are now advocating for a reevaluation of our constitutional system.

• Corey Bretztstunyder from Brown University labeled the Constitution “a dangerous document” that threatens democracy.
• Mary Anne Franks from George Washington University criticized what she sees as a “constitutional cult.”
• Ryan D. Dorffler from Harvard and Samuel Moyne from Yale argued in a column that we need to detach from constitutionalism to reclaim America.
• Irwin Kemelinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, argued that the Constitution poses risks to democratic health.

It’s become increasingly common in news media to dismiss the Constitution as a tool of oppression.

This growing anti-constitutional sentiment is being echoed in academic circles, where there’s a push to discard the system altogether, especially in light of election rulings viewed as contrary to progressive ideals.

Reflection on the Constitution’s Legacy

For law students today, expressing support for the Constitution seems increasingly risky, as it’s equated with naivety and an invitation for backlash. Klerman pointed out that if the Constitution fails to operate effectively, it’s merely “a word on paper.” But, he believes it embodies a social contract formed through faith—a framework that has withstood wars and crises for over two centuries.

After the event at Colgate, I had the chance to speak at a Constitution Day celebration in Grand Lake, Colorado. The town, nestled in the Rockies, may be small, but its commitment to the Constitution felt profound.

I arrived late but decided to participate in the parade the next morning, despite my exhaustion. What I witnessed was heartwarming—locals and visitors from across the state sharing a collective appreciation for the Constitution.

Before the festivities began, I met three boys dressed in revolutionary attire who were excitedly raising the American flag. As we marched down Main Street, we were greeted with cheers from families along the way, creating an atmosphere devoid of anger, filled instead with gratitude.

Patriotism Beyond Partisan Divisions

Some might see my account as a quaint snapshot, a small-town encounter that lacks significance in our broader political climate. Living in Washington, D.C., it’s easy to succumb to cynicism, where patriotism often feels like mere political theater. Yet, each generation wrestles with the belief that our challenges are unprecedented.

During our discussions, Klerman clarified that he wasn’t labeling all Trump supporters as fascists; many simply lack access to diverse information. He argued that students who haven’t engaged in activism recently are inadvertently complicit in the rise of authoritarianism. However, I suggested that perhaps a lot of citizens simply hold different views from the prevailing elite narratives and that their perspectives are often overlooked.

Despite differing opinions, I respect Klerman’s concerns about what he sees as threats to vulnerable members of society. In entrenched environments like Harvard, views opposing his may seem universally rejected, fostering a narrow mindset.

Yet, outside the confines of elite institutions, there are numerous individuals who still believe strongly in the Constitution. After spending time in Grand Lake, it became clear to me how vital such perspectives are. In academia, many law professors resemble those who have lost faith yet still wear their academic robes—strugglers caught between ideals and reality.

As I continued through the town, I encountered two boys eagerly discussing the upcoming fireworks, one displaying a pocket Constitution he was proud to carry. “We share it,” his younger brother chimed in, highlighting a spirit of community.

Over the past two centuries, this Constitution has defined us—not merely as a collection of laws but as a nation united by shared ideals. Leaving Grand Lake was tough, but knowing that such places—and this faith—still exist offers hope.