Tag: Harvard

  • The Harvard experience: could it happen here?

    The Harvard experience: could it happen here?

    by GR Evans

    On 1 May 2025 The Guardian headline read: ‘Trump administration exploits landmark civil rights act to fight universities’ diversity initiatives‘. What prevents a British King or Prime Minister from attempting to impose sanctions on universities?

    US higher education is exposed both to presidential and to state interference. Government powers to intervene in US HE reside in presidential control of federal funding, which may come with conditions. Trump cannot simply shut down the Department of Education by executive order but it seems he can direct that the Department’s grant- and loan-giving functions are taken on by another government department.

    As early as 2023 Donald Trump had said ‘We are going to choke off the money to schools that aid the Marxist assault on our American heritage and on Western civilization itself’. In response to campus protest he removed $400m of Columbia’s federal funding in March 2025 on the grounds that the University had failed to address the alleged ‘persistent harassment of Jewish students’. In April 2025 he gave orders to Ivy League universities, threatening withdrawal of funding if their teaching and research did not comply with Government policy as the President defined it and that their appointments should have regard to those expectations.

    On 8 April the Washington Examiner reported a planned attempt to counter such action by legislation, that is to prevent Trump’s directives taking effect by amending the Higher Education Act of 1965 ‘to prohibit political litmus tests in accreditation of institutions of higher education and for other purposes.  On 10 April the Chronicle of Higher Education foresaw an Executive Order.

    A letter to Harvard dated 11 April signed on behalf of the Department of Education and other federal agencies asserted that the United States had ‘invested in Harvard University’s operations’ because of ‘the value to the country’ of its work, but warned that ‘an investment is not an entitlement.’ This letter, if accepted, was to constitute ‘an agreement in principle’. Governance was to be ‘exclusively’ in the hands of those ‘tenured professors’ and ‘senior leadership’ who were ‘committed to the ‘changes indicated in this letter’. Its ‘hiring and related data’ and its student ‘admissions data’ were to be ‘shared with the federal Government’. International students ‘hostile to American values’ were not to be admitted and those already admitted  were to be reported to federal authorities. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion were to end and student protest restricted.

    Harvard and other Ivy League Universities were indignant. Harvard in particular rode the headlines for some days, objecting to the Government demand that it immediately agree:

    to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come

    and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. There were reports that US academics were seeking to escape to employment in Canada,  the UK or Europe.

    The American Association of Colleges and Universities(AACU), founded in 1915 as the Association of American Colleges, now has a wide-ranging  and international membership. It is a loose counterpart to the British Universities UK which also has a membership including an extensive range of higher education providers. The AACU issued a Call for Constructive Engagement on 22 April, 2025, but litigation was already in hand, with the President and Fellows of Harvard seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on 21 April. Harvard is listed as the plaintiff with a considerable list of defendants identified (paras 15-30). In its submission Harvard argued that:

    American institutions of higher learning have in common the essential freedom to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom

    and that such ‘American institutions of higher learning’ were ‘essential to American prosperity’.

    It stressed a ‘longstanding collaboration between universities such as Harvard and the federal government dating back to the Second World War’. It pointed to Harvard’s success in using federal funding to achieving significant research outcomes. The recent ‘broad attack of Government’ on ‘universities across America’, not only on Harvard and the other Ivy League Universities listed, had affected the ‘critical funding partnerships’ that made this invaluable research possible.

    This case was being brought because, it was argued, the Government had been using ‘the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard’. Harvard cited the Government’s letter of 11 April as demanding governance reform and a ‘third-party’ audit ‘of the viewpoints of Harvard’s student body, faculty, and staff’, followed by the hiring of new Faculty and admission of students whose views were satisfactory to the Government. It had asserted that teaching should be ‘to the Government’s satisfaction as determined in the Government’s sole discretion’ and to that end Harvard  should ‘terminate or reform its academic “programs” to the Government’s liking’. The Government had since ‘launched multiple investigations and other actions against Harvard’.  

    The Government had ‘within hours of the Freeze Order ‘ended ‘$2.2 billion in multiyear grants and $60M in multiyear contract value to Harvard University’ and Harvard began receiving ‘stop work orders’. In order to bring a case against the Government it was essential for Harvard to establish that the Government’s action constituted a breach of public law. To that end it stated that the ‘Court has jurisdiction over Harvard’s claims’ because the University did not ‘seek money damages or an order mandating specific performance of any contract’, but:

    an order declaring unlawful and setting aside sweeping agency action taken in violation of Harvard’s constitutional rights under the First Amendment and its rights guaranteed by statute and regulation.

    Harvard stressed that even though it is a private university its research is federally funded ‘through a grant process administered by federal agencies’. It cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which requires ‘a detailed and mandatory statutory framework’ of procedures to be followed. Harvard had its own procedures, added to or created in August, September and November 2024. Specifically in March 2025, Harvard released updated “Frequently Asked Questions” clarifying that both Jewish and Israeli identities are covered by the University’s Non-Discrimination Policy.

    Harvard explained that it had attempted ‘collaboration’ in the weeks following the government letter and the Federal Task Force’s press release announcing campus visits. It had sought to arrange a meeting on the campus and that was scheduled for late April 2025, yet on April 20 it was reported that the ‘Trump administration has grown so furious with Harvard University’ that ‘it is planning to pull an additional $1 billion of the school’s funding for health research.’

    Trump’s threatened sanctions concerned the future of Harvard’s funding. Harvard has endowments  of c$53 billion so any threat from Trump to reduce federal funding posed a limited risk to its future. However he made a further proposal on 18 April to remove Harvard’s exemption from Government tax on its income, which could have hit its normal operation harder.

    The US counterpart to HMRC is its Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS may grant tax-exempt status to a charitable, religious, scientific or literary organization, on condition that it refrains from campaigning or seeking to modify legislation. However, the President is not permitted to direct the IRS to conduct an investigation or audit. To that extent the counterbalancing of executive, legislative and judicial powers in the US seems to be holding.

    Harvard was making its challenge at a time when the balance between the executive and the judiciary in the US had come into question in a number of cases where Trump’s executive orders sought to override the courts. It claimed that ‘the Freeze Order is part of a broader effort by the Government to punish Harvard for protecting its constitutional rights. … multiple news outlets have reported that the Internal Revenue Service is considering revoking its recognition of Harvard’s tax exempt status’. Representing 86 universities, the Presidents’ Alliance has filed an Amicus brief supporting the litigation.

    Harvard sought in its litigation to have the Freeze Order declared unconstitutional and also the ‘unconstitutional conditions’ sought to be imposed  in the April 3 and April 11 and any action taken under it so far, also banning any future orders in the same vein. It pleaded six Counts, first a violation of the First Amendment in that the letters had targeted the ‘academic content that Harvard professors “teach students”’. Count 2 was that ‘even if the prerequisites of review under the Administrative Procedure Act were not satisfied, federal courts have the “equitable power” to “enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers.”’ Count 3 was that Title VI does not permit wholesale freezing of a recipient’s federal financial assistance. Instead, it requires that a “refusal to grant or to continue assistance” be “limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which . . . noncompliance has been so found.” Count 4 was the Government’s failure to ‘comply with their own regulations before freezing Harvard’s federal financial assistance’. Count 5 alleged that the action had been arbitrary and capricious and Count 6 that it had been ultra vires.

    At Indiana University a professor of Germanic studies was recently investigated under a state law after a student accused him of speech in support of Palestine.

    Could this happen in the UK?

    English higher education providers have their autonomy protected by the Higher Education and Research Act (2017)s.2 [HERA]. This legislation created the Office for Students, a non-departmental public body, whose nearest US counterpart is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895 which accredits higher education institutions. The University of Michigan, for example seeks, renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years.

    The Office for Students is both regulator and funder, and distributes Government funding to higher education providers. This may take into account ‘particular policy areas and government priorities. Yet HERA outlaws any attempt by the OfS to impose the restrictions Trump sought to impose on the universities of the USA.  English higher education providers must be free:

    (i) to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed,

    (ii) to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of academic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, and

    (iii) to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases.

    Academic staff in England also enjoy ‘freedom within the law’:

    (i) to question and test received wisdom, and

    (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions,

    without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the providers.

    There is some Government oversight. In protecting ‘the institutional autonomy of English higher e providers’, the Office for Students is subject to the ‘guidance’ of the Secretary of State, though Government requirements are held off by the legislative fencing.  The guidance of a higher education provider by the Office for Students:

    must not relate to—

    (a) particular parts of courses of study,

    (b) the content of such courses,

    (c) the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed,

    (d) the criteria for the selection, appointment or dismissal of academic staff, or how they are applied, or

    (e) the criteria for the admission of students, or how they are applied.

    The legislation adds that:

    guidance framed by reference to a particular course of study must not guide the OfS to perform a function in a way which prohibits or requires the provision of a particular course of study.

    This seems to place universities safely out of reach of the kind of restrictions Trump sought to impose on Harvard and other Ivy League Universities, but the Office for Students is potentially able not only to set its Government funding levels but also affect its students’ access to loans from the Student Loans Company. That can certainly be at risk, for example in the case of the Oxford Business College, whose funding (via franchise arrangements) was blocked in April 2025 when it was found to have abused the student loan system by admitting unqualified students. (US accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)

    Access to Government funding through the OfS requires listing by the Office for Students on its Register as an approved provider. The Office for Students did not impose its Conditions of Registration on pre-existing universities before including them in 2018 on its first Register under HERA. It simply treated them as proven acceptable providers of higher education. Each university duly publishes an account of its compliance (eg at Oxford) with the requirements which enable it to remain on the Office for Students Register. What might happen if they were found not to have done so? Short of removal from its Register the OfS has been known to impose fines, notably of more than £500,000 in the recent case of the University of Sussex when it was alleged to have failed to follow its own procedures designed to protect academic freedom.

    Government oversight of the work of HE providers may overlap with or sit uneasily beside forms of ‘accreditation’ and ’qualification’. The accreditation of qualifications in the UK may be the responsibility of a number of ‘agencies’ external to HE providers, some of which are bodies offering professional qualifications. For example the Solicitors Regulation Authority keeps its own register of qualified solicitors. A university degree may not constitute a ‘qualification’ without the completion of further recognised study, some of which may be provided by the university itself, for example the Postgraduate Certificate in Education.

    An area of ‘accreditation’ undergoing significant reform and expansion in the UK covers ‘skills’, including  apprenticeships. Not all universities offer their own apprenticeships, though they may recognise some of those available from other providers at Levels 4 and 5. Nevertheless ‘skills’ are potentially at risk of Government intervention. At the beginning of March 2025, the House of Lords was debating whether  ‘skills’ might benefit from the establishment of a ‘new executive agency’.

    It was recognised that there would need to be a report from the Secretary of State  ‘containing draft proposals’ for an agency, ‘to be known as “Skills England”. Ian Sollom MPobjected that that that would represent ‘a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.’ A ‘statutory, departmental body would have more clout’, he argued.

    An Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) already existed, but it was concerned with qualifications up to Level 5, short of degree-level 6. ‘Skills England’ was intended to begin work in April 2025. ‘When Skills England calls, will anybody answer the phone?’ asked HEPI, pointing to ‘limited autonomy, complex cross-departmental coordination, tensions between national and local priorities, and competing objectives between foundational and higher-level skills need’. Its ‘cross-departmental working’ with Government was unclear.

    It looks as though some universities, at least, are safe from any initiative to interfere from above with the right to self-government and to determine what to teach and research. Harvard records a ‘revenue base’ of $65billion, with ‘federal funding ‘ as its largest source of support for research. The research income of Oxford, for example, is £778m, with commercial research income of £148m. That cannot compare with Harvard, but at least Oxford and some others will remain free to choose how to use that income for its academic purposes.

    This is a modified version of an article first published by the Oxford Magazine No 477 in May 2025, republished with the permission of the editor and author.

    SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Judge halts ban on international enrolments at Harvard

    Judge halts ban on international enrolments at Harvard

    In the latest move in the government’s dramatic feud with the US’s oldest university – and a major victory for international education sector – district judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order yesterday, halting the directive stripping Harvard of its eligibility to enrol students from overseas.

    It follows the institution’s swift decision to mount a legal challenge against the administration’s demands that it hand over all disciplinary records for international students from the last five years if it wanted to regain its SEVP status.

    In its lawsuit, Harvard said: “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission.” The next hearing in the case will be held in Boston on May 29.

    If it comes to pass, the ban on international student enrolments would significantly harm Harvard’s financial situation – with last year’s 6,793 overseas students making up a sizeable 27% of the student body.

    With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission
    Harvard University

    Orders from the Trump administration would not only prevent Harvard from enrolling any F-1 or J-1 students for the 2025/26 academic year, but also force current international students to transfer to another university if they want to stay in the country. 

    The move cause widespread panic among international students – especially given that some are set to graduate in just one week.

    Students told The PIE News that they were worried about what was happening, but trusted Harvard to “have our backs”.

    The institution’s row with Harvard stems from the stand it took – one of the only US institutions to do so – against the administrations raft of demands, including that it reform its admissions and hiring practices to combat antisemitism on campus, end DEI initiatives and hand over reports on international students.

    When the institution refused to do so, the government froze $2.2 billion in the university’s funding, threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, and demanded international students’ records if it didn’t want to lose its SEVP certification. 

    Although Harvard did send over some student information on April 30, and maintained that it had provided the information it was legally bound to supply, this seems to have been insufficient for the Trump administration.

    In US homeland security secretary Kristi Noem’s letter to Harvard, she said: “This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements”.  

    Source link

  • Panic hits Harvard international students after Trump crackdown

    Panic hits Harvard international students after Trump crackdown

    As per a statement released by Kristi Noem, US homeland security secretary, Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification has been revoked because of their “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    “As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies, you have lost this privilege,” read the letter by Noem to Harvard University, shared on X, formerly Twitter. 

    “The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year.”

    Students set to join Harvard this year are now relying on the institution to take urgent action to keep their dreams of studying at the Ivy League institution alive.

    “I already had to defer my intake from last year to this year due to lack of funds. Deferring again just isn’t an option for me,” stated Pravin Deshmukh, an incoming student at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. 

    “We’re hoping the university can find some form of solution and keep us updated on what’s happening. Harvard has been very proactive over the past few weeks. They’ve reassured incoming students like me of their commitment through emails, provided details on continuing classes online, and shared ways to stay in touch with the International Office.”

    Currently, over 6,800 international students are enrolled at the university, making up 27% of this year’s student body, with a significant portion hailing from countries such as China, India, Canada, South Korea, and the UK.

    WhatsApp groups are on fire – everyone’s panicking, wondering what’s going to happen next. Some parents were planning to attend graduation ceremonies, but now students are telling them, ‘Don’t say you’re coming to visit us.’

    Harvard GSE student

    The vast international student cohort at the campus will also have to transfer to another US university or risk losing their legal immigration status, according to Noem, which puts the current students in jeopardy. 

    “For graduating students, it feels like our degrees could be rendered useless and we might even be labeled as illegal immigrants,” a student at Harvard’s GSE, who requested anonymity, told The PIE. 

    “Some students are considering staying in the U.S. by transferring their SEVIS to community colleges if Harvard can’t find a solution.”

    “WhatsApp groups are on fire – everyone’s panicking, wondering what’s going to happen next. Some parents were planning to attend graduation ceremonies, but now students are telling them, ‘Don’t say you’re coming to visit us,’” the student added. 

    While Noem has issued a 72-hour ultimatum to Harvard, demanding the university hand over all disciplinary records from the past five years related to international students involved in illegal activities and protests on and off campus, students across Harvard’s schools told The PIE that professors and deans have arranged meetings with them to address any questions or concerns.

    “We received an email from the Harvard University president regarding available support, information about Zoom sessions hosted by Harvard’s international offices, and a text-message service for ICE-related threats. Today, a session is being held in person at our school with professors and the Dean,” the Harvard student stated.

    “This is Harvard — they will take a stand, unlike Columbia University or MIT. They have our backs.”

    Some students have voiced concerns about their parents traveling to the US for their graduation ceremonies, but feel reassured by Harvard’s stand that commencement will proceed as planned on May 29th.

    “The Harvard website is being updated regularly, and we have been asked to keep an eye on it, but there’s still a lot of uncertainty. Since yesterday, many of us have been wondering whether we will graduate and the next steps. The morning email confirmed that commencement will continue as planned,” stated another Harvard student, who didn’t wish to be named. 

    “There’s a shift in the atmosphere, making it very difficult to plan the next steps. We couldn’t have imagined something like this happening six months ago, but you have to be prepared for anything.”

    In the meantime Harvard has a released a statement, doubling down on its commitment towards international students.

    “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably,” stated the University. 

    “We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission.”

    Furthermore, the institution’s swift lawsuit against the Trump administration over the international student ban resulted in a major victory, as US District Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order against the government’s plan to strip Harvard of its ability to recruit international students.

    According to Sameer Kamat, founder, MBA Crystal Ball, a leading MBA admissions consultancy in India, the Trump administration could choose to extend the deadline for Harvard to comply with its requirements, similar to its approach on trade tariffs in recent weeks.

    “For all we know, Trump may ease off the pressure and give Harvard more time to comply, like he did with the tariff deadlines on his trade partners. But for now, it puts all international students in a limbo. They’ve become collateral damage in a fight that they never wanted to be part of,” stated Kamat.

    “He had played a similar move on Canada and Mexico by giving them a very tight deadline to bring down their tariffs for American goods. This was to push them into action. And then on the final day, he pushed the deadline by a month. Which is why I am thinking, we can’t rule out the possibility of that happening this time. Considering he put a 72-hour deadline, which runs into the weekend.”

    According to Namita Mehta, president, The Red Pen, consultancies like hers are actively supporting affected students by providing guidance, clarifying policy updates, and connecting them with legal or immigration experts as needed.

    “While the announcement has understandably caused concern, it’s essential to recognise that such decisions are often part of broader political narratives and may be temporary,” stated Mehta.

    “While students and families should stay engaged, informed, and proactive, it is equally important to remain hopeful. The strength of institutions like Harvard lies in their academic excellence and capacity to navigate complex challenges with integrity and vision.”

    Source link

  • Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    Harvard Wins Injunction to Protect International Enrollment

    International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.

    APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.

    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.

    On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer. 

    Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)

    “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.

    He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”

    Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.

    “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.

    Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.

    Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.

    “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.

    Another Legal Setback

    A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.

    In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing. 

    A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.

    The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.

    On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.

    The federal government has already appealed that decision.

    ‘Do This Everywhere’

    The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.

    “The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”

    Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.

    Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.

    “We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.

    Source link

  • Harvard Sues to Protect International Enrollment

    Harvard Sues to Protect International Enrollment

    International students make up more than one-quarter of Harvard’s student body.

    APCortizasJr/iStock Unreleased/Getty Images

    Less than a day after having its ability to host international students revoked by the federal government, Harvard University successfully sued the Trump administration to block the move. A judge granted a temporary restraining order late Friday morning.

    Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced Thursday afternoon that the Trump administration had stripped Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification in a letter that vaguely accused Harvard of a “failure to adhere to the law.” 

    However, the letter did not name any specific violations of the law by Harvard.

    On Friday morning, Harvard threw a legal counterpunch, filing a lawsuit challenging the revocation of SEVP certification and seeking a temporary restraining order to halt the action, which could cost Harvard to suddenly lose more than 6,000 students if they are unable to enroll. (International enrollment typically makes up about a quarter of Harvard’s head count.) Beyond blocking new enrollments, the revocation would require current international students to transfer. 

    Harvard president Alan Garber blasted the SEVP revocation as “unlawful and unwarranted” and said it was a punitive effort by the Trump administration in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands to reform governance, admissions, hiring processes and more following allegations of antisemitism and harassment that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests last year. (Harvard filed a separate lawsuit pushing back on those demands last month, prompting the Trump administration to retaliate by freezing $2.7 billion in grants and contracts, or about a third of its federal research funding.)

    “It imperils the futures of thousands of students and scholars across Harvard and serves as a warning to countless others at colleges and universities throughout the country who have come to America to pursue their education and fulfill their dreams,” Garber wrote in a message to campus.

    He added, “We will do everything in our power to support our students and scholars.”

    Harvard’s lawsuit echoed Garber’s points in an even sharper tone, accusing the federal government of blatantly violating the First Amendment and Harvard’s due process rights.

    “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,” lawyers representing Harvard argued in Friday’s early-morning legal filing.

    Harvard’s lawsuit named DHS, Noem and other officials within the department as defendants, as well as the U.S. Departments of Justice and State and agency leaders.

    Assistant DHS secretary Tricia McLaughlin fired back at Harvard in a response to Inside Higher Ed.

    “This lawsuit seeks to kneecap the President’s constitutionally vested powers under Article II. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. The Trump administration is committed to restoring common sense to our student visa system; no lawsuit, this or any other, is going to change that. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side,” she wrote.

    Another Legal Setback

    A judge swiftly agreed with Harvard’s argument, signing off on the temporary restraining order to prevent revocation of the university’s SEVP certification within hours of the lawsuit being filed.

    In a brief opinion, a district court judge in Massachusetts wrote in response to Harvard’s legal filing that the temporary restraining order was “justified to preserve the status quo.” The judge blocked DHS from stripping SEVP certification, at least temporarily, and granted a hearing. 

    A date for the hearing was not specified in court documents.

    The temporary restraining order is one of multiple legal setbacks the Trump administration has faced recently as it has sought to pull student visas over minor infractions (and for constitutionally protected speech), cap federal research funding reimbursement rates, and slash staff at the Department of Education and other agencies. Many of those efforts face ongoing challenges.

    On Thursday, for example, a federal judge barred the Trump administration from firing thousands of Department of Education employees as part of a sweeping reduction of force.

    The federal government has already appealed that decision.

    ‘Do This Everywhere’

    The Trump administration’s latest action against Harvard prompted broad condemnation from academics and free speech groups, who argued that the federal government did not follow legal processes for stripping SEVP certification and had ignored the university’s due process rights.

    “The administration has clearly targeted Harvard in recent months. In doing so, it has violated not only Harvard’s First Amendment rights, but also the rights of the university’s students and faculty,” the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a Friday social media post. “We commend Harvard for standing up for itself. Free speech and academic freedom are essential to higher education. They are values worth fighting for.”

    Despite widespread concerns from academics and lawyers that stripping Harvard’s SEVP certification is not legal, multiple Republican officials have endorsed Noem’s actions.

    Rep. Randy Fine, a Republican who represents Florida and a member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, cheered on the move in a Friday appearance on FOX Business. Fine, a two-time Harvard graduate, said the Trump administration should “do this everywhere” amid concerns about antisemitic behavior and harassment on college campuses.

    Fine also took a dim view of international students exercising their First Amendment rights.

    “We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education, and frankly they should keep their mouths shut beyond that. I don’t go into someone else’s house and complain about it when I’m there,” Fine said.

    Source link

  • Trump bars Harvard from enrolling international students in alarming crackdown on speech

    Trump bars Harvard from enrolling international students in alarming crackdown on speech

    Today, the Trump administration revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students.

    Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to end Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, citing the university’s failure to hand over the behavioral records of student visa holders.

    The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to escalate its assault against Harvard University by revoking its ability to enroll international students is retaliatory and unlawful.

    Secretary Noem’s letter warns that the Trump administration seeks to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.” But little is more un-American than a federal bureaucrat demanding that a private university demonstrate its ideological fealty to the government under pain of punishment.

    The Department’s demand that Harvard produce audio and video footage of all protest activity involving international students over the last five years is gravely alarming. This sweeping fishing expedition reaches protected expression and must be flatly rejected.

    The Department is already arresting and seeking to deport students for engaging in protected political activity it disfavors. Were Harvard to capitulate to Secretary Noem’s unlawful demands, more students could face such consequences. The administration’s demand for a surveillance state at Harvard is anathema to American freedom. 

    The administration seems hellbent on employing every means at its disposal — no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional — to retaliate against Harvard and other colleges and universities for speech it doesn’t like. This has to stop. 

    Since 1999, FIRE has fought for free speech and academic freedom at Harvard and campuses nationwide, and we will continue to do so. We know there is work to do. Whatever Harvard’s past failings, core campus rights cannot and will not be secured by surveillance, retaliation, and censorship.

    No American should accept the federal government punishing its political opponents by demanding ideological conformity, surveilling and retaliating against protected speech, and violating the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • Harvard Hit With Another $60 Million in Grant Cuts

    Harvard Hit With Another $60 Million in Grant Cuts

    The Trump administration has ended $60 million in federal grant funding for Harvard University amid an ongoing fight with the private institution over concerns about alleged campus antisemitism.

    The Department of Health and Human Services announced the move late Monday night.

    “HHS is taking decisive action to uphold civil rights in higher education,” the agency posted on social media. “Due to Harvard University’s continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination, HHS is terminating multiple multi-year grant awards—totaling approximately $60 million over their full duration. In the Trump Administration, discrimination will not be tolerated on campus. Federal funds must support institutions that protect all students.”

    HHS also linked to a report from The Daily Caller, a right-wing website, which noted that the $60 million in grants came from funding via the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    The Daily Caller reported that federal government officials sent a letter to Harvard that cites the university’s own findings of antisemitism on campus as detailed in a report published last month.

    A CDC official, according to The Daily Caller, told the university that funding an institution that the Trump administration perceives as discriminatory would be inconsistent with the CDC’s mission. The CDC official concluded that “no corrective action is possible here.”

    Harvard did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The latest move comes as the Trump administration has already pulled other grants and federal contracts and frozen more than $2.7 billion in federal funding—about a third of Harvard’s federal funds.

    Harvard is also facing several investigations from the Trump administration.

    The university has been locked in conflict with the federal government for months since it spurned Trump’s demands to overhaul governance, hiring, admissions and more, which prompted retaliation in the form of a funding freeze. Harvard sued the Trump administration last month, arguing that it sought to “impose unprecedented and improper control over the university.”

    A hearing in that case is set for July.

    Source link

  • EEOC Initiates Investigation Into Harvard University Over Racial Discrimination – CUPA-HR

    EEOC Initiates Investigation Into Harvard University Over Racial Discrimination – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 19, 2025

    On April 25, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Acting Chair, Andrea Lucas, issued a Commissioner’s Charge against Harvard University announcing that the EEOC is investigating whether “Harvard may have violated and may be continuing to violate Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] by engaging in a pattern or practice of disparate treatment against white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants in hiring, promotion (including but not limited to tenure decisions), compensation, and separation decisions; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development, and other career development programs.”

    The charge also covers “entities managed by, affiliated with, related, or operating jointly with or successors to” Harvard University. This includes the institution’s medical school, school of public health, and school of arts and sciences, as well as the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, among others. The investigation will look back to 2018 for potential discrimination.

    As Acting Chair Lucas explains in the charge, the allegations “are based on publicly available information regarding Harvard, including, but not limited to, documents and information published on Harvard and its affiliates’ public webpages (including archived pages); public statements by Harvard and its leadership; and news reporting.” The charge references documents that were on Harvard’s website, including resources that tracked its decade-long progress to diversify its faculty, but these documents have since been deleted from the university’s website.

    Lucas highlights data showing a 10% drop in white men among “all ladder faculty” from 2013 to 2023 and the corresponding 10% increase in total women, nonbinary, and faculty of color in the same time span. She also points to the increase in the percentage of tenured and tenure-track faculty that are women, nonbinary, and/or people of color. Acting Chair Lucas believes Harvard took “such unlawful action in an effort to achieve, in Harvard’s own words, ‘demographic diversification of the faculty.’” Moreover, Lucas claims, “there is reason to believe that these trends and the underlying pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and sex have continued in 2024 and are ongoing.”

    The charge also emphasizes that various programs hosted by the university and its affiliates — including fellowship programs, research opportunities, and other initiatives targeted toward underserved groups, including Black and Native American students — demonstrate disparate treatment by the university and its affiliates against White, Asian, male, and straight applicants and training program participants.

    The EEOC’s Commissioner’s Charge is the latest escalation of the battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, which has frozen or paused billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts, threatened to revoke the school’s tax-exempt status, and initiated a task force to investigate the university’s behavior towards Jewish students. The Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services are also investigating the university, including for race-based discrimination.

    In a letter in response to the Department of Education, Harvard explained:

    “Employment at Harvard is similarly based on merit and achievement. We seek the best educators, researchers, and scholars at our schools. We do not have quotas, whether based on race or ethnicity or any other characteristic. We do not employ ideological litmus tests. We do not use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in our hiring decisions. We hire people because of their individual accomplishments, promise, and creativity in their fields or areas of expertise, and their ability to communicate effectively with students, faculty, and staff. And we take all of our legal obligations seriously, including those that pertain to faculty employment at Harvard, as we seek to offer our students the most dynamic and rewarding educational experience that we can.”

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this charge and other relevant enforcement activity at the EEOC.



    Source link

  • Harvard University devotes $250M to sustain research hit by federal cuts

    Harvard University devotes $250M to sustain research hit by federal cuts

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Harvard University will put $250 million of its own funds toward research affected by the ongoing wave of federal cuts, according to a Wednesday announcement. 
    • Since last week, Harvard has received “a large number of grant terminations from the federal government,” President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning said in a campuswide message. The funding disruptions are halting “lifesaving research and, in some cases, losing years of important work,” they said.
    • Harvard is taking the same tack as Northwestern and Johns Hopkins universities, which announced in April they would use institutional dollars to cover the cost of ongoing research hit by cuts.

    Dive Insight:

    Northwestern and Johns Hopkins began self-funding some of their own research after hundreds of millions of their federal funding had been lost or frozen due to the Trump administration.

    Since Trump retook office, several federal agencies have abruptly changed their funding policies, cutting off billions in grants and contracts with little to no warning. The National Institutes of Health alone slashed $1.8 billion in a little over a month, according to findings published in JAMA last week. 

    Harvard is now similarly self-funding affected research. But the federal government’s attacks against it outpace those directed at many of its peers. 

    Last month, the Trump administration canceled over $2.2 billion in federal funds to Harvard after the Ivy League institution publicly rebuked its ultimatums, arguing they overstepped the federal government’s authority. Among the demands, the administration sought a third-party audit of the viewpoints of university employees and students and wanted Harvard to selectively curtain the power of certain employees based on their activism. 

    The university is now bracing for even more cuts and mounting a legal battle against the Trump administration to regain its federal funding. 

    The university intends to fight the government’s “unlawful freeze and termination” of many of its grants and is doing what it can in the interim, Garber and Manning said Wednesday.

    “Although we cannot absorb the entire cost of the suspended or canceled federal funds, we will mobilize financial resources to support critical research activity for a transitional period as we continue to work with our researchers to identify alternative funding sources,” they said.

    They added that the university will advocate for “the productive partnership between the federal government and research universities” that has existed for over eight decades.

    Over 50 higher ed organizations, led by the American Council on Education, made a similar plea in a joint statement Wednesday.

    “The entire country benefits when policymakers and higher education leaders respect a common understanding of the vital role colleges and universities play in advancing the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the United States,” the organizations said.

    They argued that the release of research funds should not be contingent on which students colleges enroll, what programs they offer or how they oversee their instructors. The signatories also include the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the New England Commission of Higher Education, Harvard’s accreditor.

    Prior to its announcement Wednesday, Harvard had already implemented a hiring freeze for the spring semester. And dozens of faculty members have pledged 10% of their salaries to shore up against the “severe financial damage” the university faces as it takes the Trump administration to court.

    Garber recently made a similar pledge. He will take a voluntary 25% pay cut beginning in July, a university spokesperson said Thursday. 

    Harvard has not yet publicly disclosed the new president’s salary. But his predecessors have made north of $1 million annually, meaning his voluntary pay cut in fiscal 2026 would likely net the university six-figure savings.

    Garber, a longstanding Harvard employee, has taken a pay reduction during turbulent financial times before. As provost, Garber took a 25% cut in 2020 in response to the pandemic, as did the university’s then-president and executive vice president.

    Source link

  • Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    Harvard Medical Researcher Detained by ICE Faces Charge

    The Harvard Medical School research associate and Russian native detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement three months ago and sent to Louisiana now faces a criminal charge—for allegedly trying to smuggle frog embryos into the U.S.

    The Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s Office announced the charge in a news release Wednesday, saying it could mean “a sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a term of up to five years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000.”

    Prosecutors allege that after the researcher, Kseniia Petrova, arrived from Paris at Boston’s Logan International Airport, a law enforcement canine “alerted its handler to the defendant’s checked duffel bag on the baggage carousel.” The release said Petrova “initially denied carrying any biological material in her checked baggage.”

    Petrova’s lawyer, Gregory Romanovsky, said in a statement Thursday that “less than two hours after the Vermont judge set a hearing on Kseniia’s release, she was suddenly transferred from ICE to criminal custody. This is not a coincidence. It is an attempt by the government to justify its outrageous and legally indefensible position that this scientist working for the U.S. on cures for cancer and aging research has somehow become a danger.”

    The government said in court Wednesday that it intends “to deport Kseniia to Russia,” Romanovsky said, “where it knows she will face grave danger for opposing the Putin regime.”

    He said he expects Petrova will be transferred to Massachusetts in the next few weeks. Romanovsky has previously said Petrova was transporting “a non-hazardous scientific sample,” for which authorities could’ve merely fined her instead of detaining her and revoking her visa.

    Source link