Colbert Could Only Do So Much When Fighting The Big Money. Me, Too.
By
Leonard Zwelling
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/18/opinion/colbert-late-show-cbs-trump.html?searchResultPosition=3
Most everyone knows that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has been cancelled by CBS. Colbert criticized the network for settling a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump over interviews with Kamala Harris on 60 Minutes. CBS paid Trump $16 million in a suit CBS could have won so that the merger between CBS’s parent company Paramount and Skydance would be approved by the government. (It was.) Everyone knew Paramount chairwoman Shari Redstone had given in to pressure. Trump had successfully extorted Redstone. This is the way business is being done in America and the manner in which the government exerts its influence. When law firms, or universities, or companies run up against Trump’s interests, the law firms, and the universities, and the companies cave. Essentially, all of these powerful opponents of Trump know they do not have the ability to overcome his will and his power. As the author of the attached piece, Molly Jong-Fast, titled the op-ed, “Colbert Could Never Save Us From Trump.”
I have been writing this blog since Ron DePinho ascended to the presidency of MD Anderson. First, I wrote anonymously as The Old Dog, then under my own name. I soundly criticized the choice of DePinho and his decisions as president. DePinho was eventually removed, but I have no illusions that I had anything to do with that. I really believe that there were other forces within MD Anderson being heard far better than I was by the leadership of the UT System. That leadership eventually realized that DePinho was not a good choice and had performed poorly. That Chancellor, Admiral McRaven, acted.
After the time of the temporary MD Anderson leadership–the interstices between DePinho’s ouster and the appointment of a new choice, that new president was chosen, Peter Pisters. At first, I thought he was an interesting choice. He had, after all, been a faculty member for about twenty years and had some administrative experience, although it was limited. I was concerned by his lack of knowledge of research, but hoped he would surround himself with people with skills that would complement his own. I met with Pisters several times in the early days of his presidency, the first meeting at his request. I emphasized the need to hire a member of the National Academy of Sciences as a scientific leader in his administration if he wanted to see great people recruited and treatment-changing science done. Unfortunately, as has become the norm, I had no influence whatsoever on what happened at MD Anderson under Dr. Pisters.
Pisters surrounded himself with inexperienced people with little depth or appreciation for what faculty members actually do. He has let the lawyers make all kinds of decisions regarding policy that affects the faculty. He has done everything in his power to marginalize the Faculty Senate, and now, thanks to the Texas State Legislature, the Faculty Senate will be no more.
Much as I wish it were otherwise, me writing this blog can affect very little. All the blog can do is inform and educate to the best of my ability and suggest actions the faculty could take to improve its lot. I am quite confident now, that like Stephen Colbert, many law firms, and most universities, the faculty of MD Anderson has been cowed into submission by an autocratic leader.
Before the Senate vanishes, it ought to take a vote of no confidence in the current leadership and go on record as opposing the policies of the UT System, the Board of Regents, and the local MD Anderson executives.
LOL.
Barring a miracle, I see another five to ten years of Anderson’s regression to the mean of American cancer centers. There will be a greater and greater emphasis on patient care dollars at the precise moment that cancer research can do so much, but only with a large influx of funding, which will not come from the NIH.
The number one job of the president of MD Anderson should be securing all the mission areas with continuity—especially research. Patient care is for now. Research is for tomorrow. Education is for tomorrow. Prevention is for tomorrow.
The MD Anderson president ought to consider managing his costs down (a reduction in force of non-faculty) and his income up (philanthropy for research). I cannot see this president doing either which is too bad. But remember, he didn’t listen to me at the beginning of his tenure Why would he start now?
Just tell me this. What is the president’s vision for Anderson in five years?