Four students wait outside his office door on Tuesday afternoon. Usually no one comes the first couple weeks, but today Nisha Desai stands at the front of the line, backpack clutched to her chest.
The 8:00 AM meeting with Patricia had been blunt: complaints about politics, The Class Portal scrutiny, donors nervous. Her guidance was to teach "just the history" and deflect contemporary questions so students form their own conclusions. "Our job is to survive long enough to keep teaching," she'd said. "Tenure doesn't protect you from everything." He'd left without responding.
He didn't sleep well. The guest room door stayed closed all night. When he'd left this morning, Elena had already been gone.
"Dr. Brenner? Do you have a minute?"
He waves her in. His shirt is wrinkled, the same one from yesterday morning.
Nisha sits across from him, backpack clutched in her lap. "I wanted to apologize if The Class Portal got too heated this weekend. I know you said to keep it focused on coursework."
"It's fine," Dr. Brenner says. "Class discussions spilling into online forums is natural. As long as everyone remains respectful—"
"But it is coursework, isn't it?" Nisha interrupts. "I mean, we're studying exactly this. The mechanisms of authoritarian consolidation. And they're happening. Right now."
Dr. Brenner takes off his glasses, cleans them. "Historical analysis requires distance. Perspective. When you're in the middle of events, it's very difficult to assess them objectively."
"But isn't that when assessment matters most?" Nisha leans forward. "If we wait for historical distance, it's too late to do anything."
"Do anything about what?"
"About stopping it."
He puts his glasses back on. Nisha is twenty years old, brilliant, passionate. She wrote a paper last semester comparing Weimar press freedoms to contemporary media that was genuinely impressive. She deserves an honest answer.
"Nisha, I understand your concern. But my job is to teach you to think historically, to analyze evidence, to understand complexity. Not to tell you what to think about current events."
"Even when current events mirror the historical patterns we're studying?"
"Especially then. Because those are precisely the moments when bias can cloud analysis."
Nisha's jaw tightens.
"With respect, Dr. Brenner, your neutrality is a luxury people like me don't have. I'm a queer woman of color. When the government starts targeting 'the enemy within,' I'm on that list. So are my friends. So is my partner. My roommate's parents are asylum applicants—they've already been told their hearing is suspended indefinitely."
She stands.
"But yeah, I'll keep my 'bias' out of the classroom."
She leaves before he can respond.
The next student is Marcus Washington, who closes the door gently and sits down.
"Marcus. How are you?"
"I'm okay, Dr. Brenner." Marcus has a thesis draft in his hand. "I wanted to talk about my comparative analysis. After this weekend's news, I think I need to expand the U.S. case study."
"You're still including the U.S.?" Dr. Brenner had tried to talk Marcus out of it in December, warning him that comparing contemporary America to Turkey, Hungary, and Brazil was too politically charged for a Master's thesis.
"I have to." Marcus meets his eyes. "The patterns are too clear. Schedule F, the IG firings, the attacks on independent media—it's all in the authoritarian playbook. I can't ignore it just because it's happening here."
"Marcus, I worry about you. If you go into graduate school with a thesis that's seen as politically motivated—"
"What if I don't get to go to graduate school?"
Marcus's voice drops.
"Did you see the OPM announcement? The Office of Personnel Management issued implementation guidance for Schedule F this afternoon. They're converting policy-related federal positions to at-will employment. Including research positions at NSF, NIH, EPA. What if I get into a program and the funding disappears because I'm not politically reliable?"
Silence. Dr. Brenner hasn't considered this.
"That's… that's speculative."
Marcus sets down his draft.
"So was everything in my thesis proposal three months ago."
After Marcus leaves, Dr. Brenner checks the news on his phone. Another knock.
Billy James leans against his doorframe. MAGA hat, worn Carhartt jacket. Billy didn't join the class until Friday after a waitlist spot opened. Dr. Brenner has barely registered him yet except for the hat and the aggressive presence.
"Dr. Brenner? You got a minute?"
Dr. Brenner waves him in. Billy sits without closing the door—keeps one hand on the chair back like he might bolt.
"I wanted to ask about today's reading," Billy says. "The Enabling Act stuff. I'm reading people online saying it wasn't actually that bad—it passed legally, Hindenburg signed it, it was all constitutional process. I don't get why we're acting like it was so unusual."
Dr. Brenner sets down his phone. "That's a good question. What's your thought?"
"Well, it was legal. They had a two-thirds majority. Procedure was followed, right?"
"Technically yes." Dr. Brenner leans back. "But there's context that matters. The Reichstag had just been destroyed in a fire—February 27, 1933, one month after Hitler's appointment. The Nazis blamed communists. Most historians believe either they set it themselves or took advantage of an independent arsonist's fire. Either way, the fire was used to justify emergency decrees that suspended civil liberties."
Billy nods, listening.
"Then, when they brought the Enabling Act to a vote in March, the communists had already been arrested or were in hiding. The Nazis had paramilitary thugs standing outside the Reichstag. The Center Party was promised that the law would only apply to financial measures, not constitutional changes. It was lies, but the promise was enough. So legally it passed. But it was procedurally corrupt—based on fraud, intimidation, and incomplete information."
"So it wasn't really legal," Billy says.
"It was legal in form. It was deeply illegal in spirit," Dr. Brenner says. "Which is partly why it matters. Democracies can die through legal procedures. You don't need a coup if you can convince legislators to vote away their own power under false pretenses."
Billy shifts in his chair. "That's weird though. Like, why would anyone vote for that?"
"Because they believed the Nazis' promises. Because they were afraid of communism. Because they wanted to restore order. Because they didn't believe it would actually happen the way it did. People are very good at not seeing what's coming."
Billy absorbs this. Dr. Brenner can't read him—no hostility, just processing. Finally Billy says, "So it's not the law itself, it's whether the law gets abused after."
"Exactly."
"But couldn't any government abuse any law?"
"Yes," Dr. Brenner says. "Which is why independent oversight, a free press, and constitutional constraints matter. They're supposed to make abuse harder. Not impossible, but harder."
Billy stands. "Thanks, Professor. That helps."
He pulls the door open, then stops. Glances back.
"The Class Portal thing—people were saying you wouldn't talk about current stuff in class. Just history. That true?"
Dr. Brenner feels the weight of this question. "Wednesday I'm teaching about the civil service laws of 1933. The history is what it is. I expect students to understand patterns and mechanisms. What you do with that understanding is up to you."
Billy nods once, sharply. "Cool. See you Wednesday."
He leaves. The Portal thread is probably still going—Billy should post something, keep the momentum. But the professor's answer sits different than the clean anger online.
Dr. Brenner sits alone, wondering if that conversation was a trap or a genuine question or both.
The Class Portal app pings again. The general chat continues its debate. He scrolls through them:
jake_m:
finally some good news. unelected bureaucrats shouldn't have lifetime jobs
nisha_d:
they're not lifetime jobs, they're CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS. This is literally Gleichschaltung
jake_m:
there you go with the German words. you're so desperate to make this into Hitler
marcus_w:
Gleichschaltung means "coordination" or "bringing into line." It refers to the Nazi process of subordinating all institutions to party control. It's not an insult, it's a technical term.
amir_h:
This is why rights have to be enforceable, not aspirational. Loyalty tests make enforcement discretionary.
jake_m:
or maybe—crazy idea—people who work for the president should actually support his agenda? He WON THE ELECTION
nisha_d:
Civil servants work for the American people, not the president. That's the whole point.
jake_m:
look, the whole reason we got rid of the old spoils mess was to stop handing out jobs for favors. fine. but that never meant the folks actually shaping policy were untouchable. if you're steering the ship and the voters pick a new captain, you don't get to throw the anchor. My dad's factory closed because EPA regulations made it cheaper to move overseas. Career bureaucrats made that call, not anyone we elected.
marcus_w:
The way this is written, though, it's pointed at people who don't change with elections. That's the shift.
amir_h:
And it scoops up the people who draft the rules—or even just handle the drafts. Doesn't matter if you're a top lawyer or a junior analyst who touched the work. Whole offices get caught.
jake_m:
those places are policy. elections should matter there.
nisha_d:
you don't have to fire everyone—just enough that the rest keep their heads down.
jake_m:
finally some good news. unelected bureaucrats shouldn't have lifetime jobs
finally some good news. unelected bureaucrats shouldn't have lifetime jobs
nisha_d:
they're not lifetime jobs, they're CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS. This is literally Gleichschaltung
they're not lifetime jobs, they're CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS. This is literally Gleichschaltung
jake_m:
there you go with the German words. you're so desperate to make this into Hitler
there you go with the German words. you're so desperate to make this into Hitler
marcus_w:
Gleichschaltung means "coordination" or "bringing into line." It refers to the Nazi process of subordinating all institutions to party control. It's not an insult, it's a technical term.
Gleichschaltung means "coordination" or "bringing into line." It refers to the Nazi process of subordinating all institutions to party control. It's not an insult, it's a technical term.
amir_h:
This is why rights have to be enforceable, not aspirational. Loyalty tests make enforcement discretionary.
This is why rights have to be enforceable, not aspirational. Loyalty tests make enforcement discretionary.
jake_m:
or maybe—crazy idea—people who work for the president should actually support his agenda? He WON THE ELECTION
or maybe—crazy idea—people who work for the president should actually support his agenda? He WON THE ELECTION
nisha_d:
Civil servants work for the American people, not the president. That's the whole point.
Civil servants work for the American people, not the president. That's the whole point.
jake_m:
look, the whole reason we got rid of the old spoils mess was to stop handing out jobs for favors. fine. but that never meant the folks actually shaping policy were untouchable. if you're steering the ship and the voters pick a new captain, you don't get to throw the anchor. My dad's factory closed because EPA regulations made it cheaper to move overseas. Career bureaucrats made that call, not anyone we elected.
look, the whole reason we got rid of the old spoils mess was to stop handing out jobs for favors. fine. but that never meant the folks actually shaping policy were untouchable. if you're steering the ship and the voters pick a new captain, you don't get to throw the anchor. My dad's factory closed because EPA regulations made it cheaper to move overseas. Career bureaucrats made that call, not anyone we elected.
marcus_w:
The way this is written, though, it's pointed at people who don't change with elections. That's the shift.
The way this is written, though, it's pointed at people who don't change with elections. That's the shift.
amir_h:
And it scoops up the people who draft the rules—or even just handle the drafts. Doesn't matter if you're a top lawyer or a junior analyst who touched the work. Whole offices get caught.
And it scoops up the people who draft the rules—or even just handle the drafts. Doesn't matter if you're a top lawyer or a junior analyst who touched the work. Whole offices get caught.
jake_m:
those places are policy. elections should matter there.
those places are policy. elections should matter there.
nisha_d:
you don't have to fire everyone—just enough that the rest keep their heads down.
you don't have to fire everyone—just enough that the rest keep their heads down.
Dr. Brenner scrolls through the thread, his thumb hovering over the reply button. Marcus's question sits at the bottom, unanswered. Should we expect to discuss contemporary parallels?
He locks his phone.
billy_j:
Every institution gets corrupted from inside. Look at the FBI, CIA, DOJ—career people actively working against Trump. Schedule F isn't about loyalty, it's about cleaning out the saboteurs. My grandfather worked for the post office 30 years, never had to worry about politics. Now look at it—full of woke ideologues. You want to fix that, you gotta make them know they answer to elected leadership.
nisha_d:
interesting that you think "woke ideologues" are the problem and not, I dunno, policy people who are just trying to do their jobs
billy_j:
yeah because the jobs aren't neutral. They're staffed by people trained in hostile institutions. If they were just "doing their jobs" we wouldn't have sabotage at every turn.
jake_m:
I get where Billy's coming from but I'd say it's not sabotage. It's just institutional inertia. Career people resist change. That's natural. But they should have to respect democratic mandates.
marcus_w:
@ProfBrenner this seems directly relevant to Wednesday's lecture on the Professional Civil Service Law. Should we expect to discuss contemporary parallels?
billy_j:
Every institution gets corrupted from inside. Look at the FBI, CIA, DOJ—career people actively working against Trump. Schedule F isn't about loyalty, it's about cleaning out the saboteurs. My grandfather worked for the post office 30 years, never had to worry about politics. Now look at it—full of woke ideologues. You want to fix that, you gotta make them know they answer to elected leadership.
Every institution gets corrupted from inside. Look at the FBI, CIA, DOJ—career people actively working against Trump. Schedule F isn't about loyalty, it's about cleaning out the saboteurs. My grandfather worked for the post office 30 years, never had to worry about politics. Now look at it—full of woke ideologues. You want to fix that, you gotta make them know they answer to elected leadership.
nisha_d:
interesting that you think "woke ideologues" are the problem and not, I dunno, policy people who are just trying to do their jobs
interesting that you think "woke ideologues" are the problem and not, I dunno, policy people who are just trying to do their jobs
billy_j:
yeah because the jobs aren't neutral. They're staffed by people trained in hostile institutions. If they were just "doing their jobs" we wouldn't have sabotage at every turn.
yeah because the jobs aren't neutral. They're staffed by people trained in hostile institutions. If they were just "doing their jobs" we wouldn't have sabotage at every turn.
jake_m:
I get where Billy's coming from but I'd say it's not sabotage. It's just institutional inertia. Career people resist change. That's natural. But they should have to respect democratic mandates.
I get where Billy's coming from but I'd say it's not sabotage. It's just institutional inertia. Career people resist change. That's natural. But they should have to respect democratic mandates.
marcus_w:
@ProfBrenner this seems directly relevant to Wednesday's lecture on the Professional Civil Service Law. Should we expect to discuss contemporary parallels?
@ProfBrenner this seems directly relevant to Wednesday's lecture on the Professional Civil Service Law. Should we expect to discuss contemporary parallels?
The tag glows red. Dr. Brenner stares at it. Office hours continue for another ninety minutes, students coming through with questions that feel less about coursework and more about reassurance. Is this normal? Should we be worried? What does history tell us?
He doesn't answer any of them directly.
Late afternoon, he closes his office door and opens his lecture notes for Wednesday. The Professional Civil Service Law section fills his screen. He reads his own words about "coordination" and loyalty tests and the systematic purging of career officials for insufficient alignment with the regime.
He opens a new tab and searches: Schedule F implementation timeline
The results are immediate:
Four months. They're going to remake the federal civil service in four months.
Dr. Brenner's phone buzzes. It's evening now. Text from Elena:
Elena:
Not coming home tonight. Staying at Dad's. Need space.
Elena:
Not coming home tonight. Staying at Dad's. Need space.
Not coming home tonight. Staying at Dad's. Need space.
He stares at the message. Types:
David:
Can we talk?
David:
Can we talk?
Can we talk?
The three dots appear. Then disappear. Nothing.
Sign in to join the discussion and post comments
Loading comments...