Tag: Harvard

Demands of Harvard Are Blueprint for Repression (opinion)

Harvard University’s courageous refusal to obey the demands of the Trump administration—and its subsequent filing of a lawsuit this week seeking restoration of its federal funding—has inspired praise across academia. But there has been less attention to just how terrible those demands were. No government entity in the United States has ever proposed such repressive measures against a college. By making outrageous demands a condition of federal funding—and freezing $2.2 billion in funds because Harvard refused to obey—the Trump administration is setting a precedent for threatening the same authoritarian measures against every college in America.

The April 11 letter to Harvard from Trump administration officials proposed a staggering level of control over a private college. Although at least one of the authors reported that the letter was sent in error while negotiations were still ongoing, this mistake didn’t stop the Trump administration from punishing Harvard for refusing to accept its dictates.

After Harvard rejected the demands, Trump himself posted further threats to Harvard’s tax-exempt status on social media, even though federal law bars presidents from directly or indirectly requesting Internal Revenue Service investigations against specific targets: “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’” Of course, if Harvard obeyed the Trump regime’s orders to silence political speech, it would be pushing a right-wing ideological agenda.

Among the stipulations in the April 11 letter, the Trump administration demanded the power to compel hiring based on political views to, in effect, give almost complete preference to political conservatives: “Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.” Since most people who enter academia are liberal, as are most current academics, this demand for ideological balance would effectively ban the hiring of liberal professors in virtually all departments for many years.

Decisions on how to measure the presence or lack of viewpoint diversity would be made by “an external party” hired by Harvard with the approval of the federal government (meaning Trump). Government-imposed discrimination based on viewpoint would also apply to students, since the letter requires the “external party … to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.” If every department “must be individually viewpoint diverse,” then students with underrepresented viewpoints (Nazis, perhaps?) must receive special preferences in admissions. This concept that every department’s students, faculty and staff must match the distribution of viewpoints of the general population is both repressive and crazy to imagine.

The Trump administration letter also ordered Harvard to commission a Trump-approved consultant to report on “individual faculty members” who “incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7”—and asserted that Harvard must “cooperate” with the federal government to “determine appropriate sanctions” for these professors. Retroactively punishing professors who violated no rules for allegedly encouraging student protesters is an extraordinary abuse of government power.

Not to stop there, the Trump administration letter seeks to suppress the right to protest: “Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions … including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption.” Since the Trump administration seems to regard every protest as a “disruption” (and Harvard itself has wrongly banned silent protests), this could require immediate police intervention to stop a broad range of actions.

The Trump administration also demanded unprecedented control over Harvard’s disciplinary system to order punishments of student protesters without due process. Among other specific steps, the Trump administration ordered Harvard to ban five specific student groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine and the National Lawyers Guild, and “discipline” all “active members of those student organizations,” including by banning them from serving as officers in any other student groups. And Harvard would be compelled to implement government-imposed punishments by “permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli Harvard Business School student and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings.”

Shared governance is another target of Trump and his minions. The Trump administration’s demands for Harvard included “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” and “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship.” It’s bizarre to imagine that a university could be forced by the government to determine whether a professor is committed to “activism” before banning them from any position of power such as a department chair or committee member. The letter also demands “removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement [of campus rules governing protests], including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.”

Not surprisingly, the Trump administration’s letter also demands a complete ban on diversity programs: “The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name.” This repression not only interferes with the ability of universities to run their own operations, but it is also designed to suppress speech on a massive scale by banning all programs anywhere in the university that address issues of diversity and equity, with no exceptions for academic programs.

There’s more. Harvard would be forced to share “all hiring and related data” to permit endless ideological “audits.” A requirement that “all existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism” could be used to purge controversial faculty. Perhaps the most ironic part of the letter to Harvard is its command for ideological control over foreign students: “the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” Trump’s regime is undermining the Constitution and shredding the Bill of Rights, while demanding that foreign students prove their devotion to the very documents that the Trump administration is destroying.

The Trump administration’s letter to Harvard should shock and appall even those conservatives who previously expressed some sympathy with the desire to punish elite universities by any means necessary. This is fascism, pure and simple. It portends an effort to assert total government control over all public and private universities to compel them to obey orders about their hiring, admissions, discipline and other policies. It is an attempt to control virtually every aspect of colleges to suppress free expression, ban protests and impose a far-right agenda.

It’s tempting to hope that the Trump administration merely wanted to target Harvard alone and freeze its funding by proposing a long series of absurdly evil demands, knowing that no college could possibly agree to obey.

But the reality is that the letter to Harvard is a fascist blueprint for total control of all colleges in America, public and private. The demand for authoritarian control by the Trump administration is an assault on higher education and free speech in general. If Trump officials can impose repression on any college they target, then private corporations (as the assaults on private law firms have indicated) and state and local governments will soon follow.

The government repression that began with Columbia University will not end with Harvard or the Ivy League institutions. These are the first volleys in a war against academic freedom, with the clear aim of suppressing free expression on campus or destroying colleges in the battle.

Source link

April 24, 2025
McMahon Defends Harvard Cuts, Faces Grilling During CNBC Interview

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the Trump administration’s crackdown on Harvard University and other colleges during a contentious appearance Tuesday on CNBC’s Squawk Box as she faced questions about the government’s decision to freeze universities’ federal funding.

Andrew Ross Sorkin and Joe Kernen, the morning talk show’s hosts, grilled McMahon during the 12-minute segment about whether freezing billions in grants and contracts was due to valid civil rights concerns or unjustified political and ideological standards; they suggested it was the latter. (Harvard sued Monday over the funding freeze, which followed the university’s decision to reject the Trump administration’s sweeping demands.)

But McMahon reiterated that, for her, it was a matter of holding colleges accountable for antisemitism on campus—not an alleged liberal bias.

“I made it very clear these are not First Amendment infractions; this is civil rights,” she said. “This is making sure that students on all campuses can come and learn and be safe.”

Harvard argued in the lawsuit that some of the demands—like auditing faculty for viewpoint diversity—do not directly address antisemitism and infringe on the private institution’s First Amendment rights.

Sorkin echoed Harvard’s argument during the interview and questioned McMahon about the lawsuit’s claims.

“The question is whether viewpoint diversity is really about free speech,” he said.

In defense, McMahon said that “this letter [of demands] that was sent to Harvard was a point of negotiation … and it was really not a final offer.” She added that she hoped Harvard would come back to the table. (Trump officials told The New York Times that the April 11 letter was sent by mistake.)

“We would like to be able to move forward with them and other universities,” she said.

McMahon later reiterated her argument that this was a civil rights matter and said, “I think we’re on very solid grounds” regarding the lawsuit.

But Kernen countered that requiring universities to hire conservative faculty members is just as bad as historically maintaining liberal ones, calling the act “thought control.”

“It’s the other side of the same coin, isn’t it?” he said.

McMahon said it’s fair to take a look at some faculty members.

Near the end of the interview, Sorkin asked McMahon about her end goal if universities lose their federal funding and tax-exempt status. (The IRS is reportedly reviewing Harvard’s tax-exemption.)

“We have not said that the tax exemption should be taken away, but I think it’s worth having a look at,” McMahon said. “I think the president has put all the tools on the table and we should have the ability to utilize all of those particular tools.”

Source link

April 23, 2025
FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

On April 21, 2025, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in federal research funding with threats of more cuts to come. The administration claimed Harvard failed to address anti-Semitism on campus, especially in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and issued a list of demands in exchange for lifting the freeze.

These demands included adopting an ideological litmus test for foreign students, a comprehensive mask ban, an audit of disfavored academic departments, mandated reforms to the university’s internal governance structure, and eliminating diversity programs. Harvard argued that these demands and the funding cuts that followed violated its institutional autonomy and constitutional right free speech and academic freedom. In the lawsuit, the university is asking the court to restore its funding and block the government from imposing such requirements in the future.

FIRE agrees that the Trump administration’s approach is unlawful. Below are answers to some common questions we have received about the situation.

Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funds. Why is FIRE defending it?

You’re right. Harvard isn’t entitled to federal funding. No institution is.

But Harvard — just like you (or FIRE, or any person or organization) — is entitled to a federal government that follows the law. And just as the law gives us certain protections, it also says the government can’t cancel funding on a whim, like the administration did last week.

Let’s take a closer look.

The vast majority of colleges and universities receive federal funds. These funds mostly consist of financial aid, like Pell grants, and grants for scientific and medical research. Of the $9 billion reportedly under review by the Trump administration, the Harvard Crimson estimates over $6 billion comes in the form of funding for five regional hospitals associated with the university, along with $2.7 billion in research funding at the university itself.

To be eligible to receive federal funding, institutions pledge to follow federal anti-discrimination laws. Those laws include Title VI, the federal law that prohibits colleges and universities from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. Since the George W. Bush administration, the federal government has interpreted Title VI as prohibiting anti-Semitic discrimination, too.

So far, so good. Colleges get government funding for students and research. The federal government in return gets (among other things) a commitment that those colleges won’t engage in or tolerate discrimination. That’s the deal.

And the deal has rules to protect colleges, the government, and the taxpayers who foot the bill from being negatively affected by arbitrary decisions. Before the federal government can pull funds from an institution, it has to take a series of steps.

First, the Department of Education must investigate complaints about discrimination. If it finds problems, ED is required to work with an institution to address those problems “by informal means whenever possible.” This is the most common process, where the department’s Office for Civil Rights enters into a “resolution agreement” with an institution to ensure compliance with Title VI.

If that doesn’t work, for whatever reason, here’s what happens next. In order to strip federal funding, the department must give notice to the institution again and provide an opportunity for an administrative hearing where the institution can challenge the determination. If the determination stands, ED then has to report this to Congress and give 30 days’ notice before it actually terminates funding to the affected programs. ED may also refer the matter to the Department of Justice for litigation.

In short, one way or another, the federal government is going to have to provide evidence and prove its case if it wants to pull out of the deal.

Those are a lot of steps, but they’re important. They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right.

These rules are also important because they provide a safeguard against political bias, risk of error, and governmental overreach.

Even the federal government acknowledges the role of due process and following existing statute. In a federal court filing earlier this month, the government wrote, “But ED’s only power is to withhold funding from institutions receiving federal funding, after a robust process required by statute and aimed at ensuring compliance.” In that same court filing, the government reiterated that point, writing that “by statute and regulation, numerous steps aimed at ensuring compliance must occur before ED may withdraw funding.”

Without these rules, an administration could, for example, decide to dramatically expand the definition of “sexual harassment” to include core protected speech and to remove due process protections from sexual misconduct hearings, using the threat of federal funding to force schools to go along with it. That’s exactly what happened under President Obama — and FIRE fought back.

And without these rules, nothing prevents the federal government from arbitrarily declaring a university in violation of federal law, yanking federal funding, and demanding fealty and censorship.

That’s what President Trump is doing now. And again, FIRE is fighting back.

Is FIRE saying that what happened to Jewish students at Harvard and other colleges is OK?

No. As FIRE has consistently noted, some campus protests veered into violations of both campus rules and the law. Examples include when protesters took over buildings, blocked access and exit to and from areas of campus, disrupted classes, or committed acts of violence against Jewish students.

In responding to these incidents — or failing to respond — Harvard, Columbia, and other colleges may well have been in violation of their obligations under Title VI. If they refused to correct their mistakes as the process played out, revoking their funding might have been justified and legal.

But the process matters.

What FIRE is saying is that the law is important. Following it isn’t optional. It protects all of us — students, faculty, administrators, families, scientists, hospitals, and the entire country. The administration can’t just decide unilaterally to skip steps.

If you support President Trump — or just don’t like Harvard — remember this: Any power the president seizes to ignore the law now won’t magically disappear when he leaves office. It will be wielded by his successors, too. And this time, it might well target schools or other organizations you like.

Didn’t Harvard rank last for free speech on your list?

It sure did — two years in a row, in fact.

But one of the reasons we created our rankings was to give colleges and universities an incentive to do better. Protecting expressive rights on campus is a big part of our mission, and Harvard has a long way to go. Indeed, Harvard (like Columbia) makes a politically popular target precisely because so many people resent its years of engaging in the kind of behavior towards dissenting students and faculty that FIRE was founded to combat.

But lately Harvard has been making an effort, and we won’t succeed by writing schools off. And we definitely won’t succeed by allowing the federal government to take them over, trading one dominant ideology for another.

You can’t censor your way to free speech.

Source link

April 22, 2025
Will Trump Follow the Law in Punishing Harvard?

In the days since Harvard University rejected the Trump administration’s demands, with billions in funding at risk, the U.S. president has weaponized multiple federal agencies to exert additional pressure on the university.

On April 11, the Trump administration sent the university a letter demanding changes to Harvard’s governance, admissions, hiring processes and more, signed by officials at the General Services Administration and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education. Government officials argued in the letter that such changes were necessary because of alleged antisemitism and harassment on campus stemming from pro-Palestinian protests last spring.

After Harvard rejected those demands last week, the government retaliated within hours by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and another $60 million in contracts. The Trump administration is now reportedly planning to pull another $1 billion in funding. (On Monday, Harvard sued to put a stop to the funding freeze, which President Alan Garber argued was “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”)

Other federal agencies have also piled on.

On Thursday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced DHS had canceled $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, declaring the university “unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars.” Noem also threatened to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would render it unable to host international students, unless the university provided by April 30 “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities,” according to a Thursday news release from the department.

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

Reports also emerged last week that the Internal Revenue Service was preparing to cancel Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a move President Donald Trump has endorsed on social media.

“Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week.

With Harvard standing firm, the president appears willing to wield the full power of the federal government to bring the university to heel. But what would that actually look like in practice?

Stripping Tax-Exempt Status

If the Trump administration follows required legal processes, removing Harvard’s tax-exempt status would be a lengthy endeavor that experts say would likely take at least several months.

The process would begin with an audit, which itself could take a few months, explained Samuel Brunson, a professor at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law specializing in tax law.

“The IRS would have to do an audit of Harvard and determine that there were one or more reasons why Harvard did not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status,” Brunson said.

Once the IRS notified Harvard of its intent to revoke its exemption, the university would be able to appeal the decision directly to agency officials. If the IRS insisted on stripping Harvard of its tax-exempt status, the university could go to the courts seeking a reprieve. And if the courts sided with the federal government, Harvard could continue to fight by appealing the decision.

While stripping universities of tax-exempt status is rare, it has happened before.

In 1970, the IRS informed Bob Jones University, a private religious institution in South Carolina, that the agency planned to strip its tax-exempt status over racially discriminatory policies. At the time, the university, founded by its namesake evangelist, did not accept Black applicants—a policy it maintained until 1975, when it opened its doors only to married Black applicants, to avoid the possibility of challenging the institution’s strict opposition to interracial relationships. (Policies barring interracial relationships remained in place until 2000.)

The university filed suit in 1971, prompting a legal fight that lasted until 1983, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of stripping BJU’s tax-exempt status. Justices found that the government’s interest in eradicating racism superseded the tax burden placed on Bob Jones. The university eventually regained its tax-exempt status in 2017, during Trump’s first term.

Brunson expects the government to make a similar argument about Harvard.

“My assumption is that the Trump administration is going to argue that Harvard violated a fundamental public policy, either by not reining in pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protesters enough, or something related to [diversity, equity and inclusion],” Brunson explained.

Still, he said “the chances of Harvard actually losing its exemption are at best minuscule.” Brunson believes that Harvard has a strong case, while the Trump administration’s argument is weak, “unless they have something up their sleeve that literally everyone is not aware of.”

The IRS did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

Targeting SEVP Certification

The government is also seeking to inflict pain on Harvard by cutting off its international student population, which would be a significant financial blow to the university. Harvard enrolled 6,793 international students in the 2024–25 academic year, according to the university website, which comprised more than 27 percent of its head count.

If the Trump administration follows legal avenues to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification—which would prevent it from hosting international students— the process would take some time. First the federal government would be required to provide notice of its intent to eliminate that certification, and Harvard would have 30 days to respond and take any necessary remedial action. If Harvard’s SEVP certification was stripped following its response, the university could challenge the decision in court, likely triggering a protracted legal battle before the issue was finally settled.

William A. Stock, managing partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, wrote by email that while colleges are subject to an SEVP recertification process every two years, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has the authority to conduct off-cycle reviews at any time. Such enforcement action is typically taken only when the federal government “comes into possession of information that may indicate possible noncompliance, or when major changes in a school’s operations require the school to update their registration with SEVP,” Stock explained.

In other words, the Trump administration would need a reason to strip Harvard’s SEVP certification.

“Essentially, if the government determines that there is an abuse of the SEVP and F-1 and J-1 [visa] designation by Harvard, they can move to take away their ability to issue those visas, which would ostensibly hamper their ability to run an international student program,” said Jonathan Grode, managing partner for Green and Spiegel, a firm that practices immigration law.

Experts noted that losing SEVP certification would cause a substantial loss of international students and hit research projects hard—even as such endeavors are already in flux from the Trump administration’s freezes on federal funding—given the high share of Ph.D. students who come from other countries. And even if Harvard doesn’t lose its SEVP certification, the mere threat of it could harm international recruitment.

In any case, the federal government has rarely revoked SEVP certification.

“The few cases of withdrawal of SEVP certification have involved schools who took serious shortcuts in compliance due to financial troubles, and a handful of cases where school administrators were charged criminally for abusing the student visa system,” Stock wrote.

For example, Herguan University, a private institution in California, lost its SEVP certification in 2016 after officials there were accused of a scheme to commit visa fraud. That case culminated in a prison sentence for the university’s chief executive officer. Herguan later lost accreditation and closed.

By threatening to limit Harvard’s ability to host international students, Grode believes the government is merely making a power play to get the university to yield to its demands.

“In a normal universe, there’s no way Harvard’s status as a provider of student visas would ever be challenged,” he said. “But as the federal government is trying to push and cajole Harvard to acquiesce on a number of different points, you’re seeing them leverage these ancillary types of activities.”

Source link

April 22, 2025
Harvard Sues the Trump Administration

After a weeks-long standoff with the federal government over alleged antisemitism on campus, Harvard University sued the Trump administration on Monday over the $2.2 billion federal funding freeze enacted after the private institution rejected a far-reaching slate of reforms last week.

The Trump administration had demanded Harvard overhaul university governance, hiring, admissions and more, despite the fact that an investigation has yet to reach any conclusions.

President Alan Garber announced the move in a statement to the university community Monday, noting that while some officials in the Trump administration have claimed the demand letter was sent by accident, the federal government has acted in ways that suggest it was purposeful.

“Doubling down on the letter’s sweeping and intrusive demands—which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University—the government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world,” Garber wrote.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has threatened to cut off Harvard’s ability to host international students and reportedly sought to freeze another $1 billion in research funding.

“It has been clear for weeks that the administration’s actions violated due process and the rule of law,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. “We applaud Harvard for taking this step and look forward to a clear and unambiguous statement by the court rebuking efforts to undermine scholarship and science.”

Harvard’s lawsuit names the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Education, Energy and Defense, the General Services Administration, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and associated agency heads. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

Source link

April 21, 2025
How Harvard Is Standing Up to Trump Means Everything

When it comes to fighting the current authoritarian threats coming out of the Trump administration, it’s important to remember that the symbol is the substance.

Frankly, this is always true of politics generally, but it’s more true and more important than ever in this moment.

We have an object example of this principle at work presently in the different responses from Harvard and Columbia when it comes to the threats to funding and demand for control by the Trump administration.

Columbia appeared to capitulate, forging an “agreement” to take steps sought by Trump, ostensibly to address antisemitism on campus, but this fig leaf was unconvincing, and Trump himself quickly dropped the pretense, as we all understand he has no interest in combating antisemitism and every interest in sending signals of domination and stoking fear that turns into pre-emptive compliance from other institutions.

Columbia looked unprincipled and weak in the face of the authoritarian threat, and the internal and external backlash against Columbia has been significant.

In contrast, once Harvard received the Trump administration demands, it crafted a careful public response, producing multiple public-facing communications meant to speak to different audiences (press, public, students, faculty, alumni) with different needs, including a letter from Harvard president Alan Garber to the university community that invoked a shared responsibility to defend the core values of the institution specifically and higher education in general.

To be fair, the call was much easier for Harvard than Columbia for several reasons. For one, Harvard had seen what happened to Columbia, where what looked like capitulation to outsiders still proved insufficient, because, again, Trump is interested in subservience, not reaching a mutual agreement. When Trump-world figures like JD Vance and Chris Rufo say they intend to destroy higher education, we should take them seriously.

The Trump administration demands of Harvard were also so extreme—amounting essentially to a takeover of the university—that it had no choice but to resist and take every possible step to rally others to the fight. The public thirst for an institutional response to Trump’s lawless power grabs has been so great that even the New York Times editorial board has weighed in with its approval of Harvard’s actions and the university’s explicit pledge to stand against violations of the rule of law.

An interesting bit of information in the form of an op-ed by Columbia history professor Matthew Connelly has come out that perhaps sheds additional light on Columbia’s actions. Writing at The New York Times, Connelly laments the hapless situation his institution finds itself in, first receiving blows from Trump and then being subjected to the “circular firing squad” of those who oppose Trump signing on to a collective boycott of Columbia.

Connelly argues that we should not view Columbia as “capitulating” to Trump because, “In fact, many of the actions the Columbia administration announced on March 21 are similar to those originally proposed last August by more than 200 faculty members.”

In other words, in agreeing with Trump, Columbia is only doing what it was possibly going to do anyway. Connelly goes on to argue that Columbia would never give in on key principles of institutional operations, and acting Columbia University president Claire Shipman has subsequently declared that Columbia would not sign any agreement that would “require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

Columbia’s actions look similar to those taken by some of the big law firms that have reached vaguely worded “agreements” with Trump that have them pledging not to do “illegal DEI hiring” and to donate tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to pro bono causes favored by Trump. At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall has gone digging into some of these agreements and found that there’s not much of specific substance to be found, the wording often so generalized and vague that it would be easy for firms to fulfill the agreements without doing anything beyond their usual patterns and practices.

I’m not entirely unsympathetic to Connelly’s irritation or the decisions by the big law firms; they thought they could make Trump go away with a little performative minor supplication and get back to their substantive work.

They’ve obviously misread the moment badly. I don’t know what more evidence we need to conclude that Trump intends to govern as an authoritarian. In both the cases of these law firms and Columbia University, the entire battle was over Trump being allowed to claim a symbolic victory over these institutions, to get them to be seen capitulating.

It is strange to say that the symbolic fight is the genuine battle over principles, but this is obviously the case. Trump wants to make others fearful of standing up to his authoritarian aims, so he will simply defy the rule of law until someone forces the victims to fight. There is no choice but to test the administration’s resolve. Trump’s response on Truth Social following Harvard’s action shows a lot of bluster aimed at tearing down Harvard’s reputation with a lot of right-wing tropes, but the rhetoric shows how nonexistent his substantive case is.

Any capitulation, real or even perceived, is a loss. Either choice will come with costs. Trump is going after Harvard’s funding and nonprofit status, and there will be significant turbulence for the university in the foreseeable future. But turbulence is not the same thing as a plane heading for the ground.

Harvard had its legal strategy prepared before the fight even went public. Law and precedent appear to be on its side, though this is not a guarantee of success. Trump seems determined to hold back whatever money he can in his ongoing attempts at coercion.

What we are learning is that there is no such thing as accommodating or reaching an agreement with an authoritarian project. Harvard’s stand is an important symbolic illustration of this, and because of the symbolism, it is proving to be hugely substantive.

Let’s hope it’s only the first example of how to fight back.

Source link

April 20, 2025
DHS Threatens Harvard With Loss of International Students

The Department of Homeland Security canceled $2.7 million in grants going to Harvard University Wednesday night and threatened to terminate its Student and Visitor Exchange Program certification, which would bar the private Massachusetts institution from enrolling international students.

DHS’s threats came shortly after Harvard rebuffed the Trump’s administration’s demands to overhaul governance, admissions, hiring processes and more amid allegations of antisemitism and harassment tied to pro-Palestinian protests last spring. Although the Trump administration has opened a civil rights investigation into antisemitism at Harvard, that inquiry remains in process.

Even so, the federal government has already moved to punish the university.

The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in research grants after Harvard rejected its initial demands, and the Internal Revenue Service is reportedly taking aim at its tax-exempt status. Now SEVP certification appears to be in the Trump administration’s crosshairs as well.

“Harvard bending the knee to antisemitism—driven by its spineless leadership—fuels a cesspool of extremist riots and threatens our national security,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Thursday statement. “With anti-American, pro-Hamas ideology poisoning its campus and classrooms, Harvard’s position as a top institution of higher learning is a distant memory. America demands more from universities entrusted with taxpayer dollars.”

DHS demanded the university provide “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities by April 30” or lose SEVP certification. The demand comes as the federal government has revoked visas for international students across the U.S., in some cases for political speech. (Inside Higher Ed has tracked more than 1,450 visa revocations.)

Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton emphasized the need for due process in federal actions.

“Harvard values the rule of law and expects all members of our community to comply with University policies and applicable legal standards,” Newton wrote. “If federal action is taken against a member of our community, we expect it will be based on clear evidence, follow established legal procedures, and respect the constitutional rights afforded to all individuals.”

Source link

April 18, 2025
Will Harvard lose its ability to enroll foreign students?
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday threatened to pull Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students if the Ivy League institution does not comply with an extensive record request by April 30. The agency also canceled $2.7 million in grants to the university.
- Earlier in the week, President Donald Trump reupped his calls for Harvard to lose its tax-exempt status and all federal funding. This all comes just days after the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force announced it was freezing over $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts to Harvard.
- The federal onslaught follows Harvard’s refusal to comply with a list of unprecedented demands from the Trump administration, which university leadership called an overstep of authority — an assessment with which free speech and higher education experts have agreed.
Dive Insight:

The federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism first turned its attention on Harvard last month. The task force announced a review into $9 billion of the university’s federal funding and claimed that Harvard has not done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. However, it did not publicly cite specific incidents or allegations, and some free speech experts and Israeli academics argue the administration is weaponizing antisemitism concerns.

Days after announcing the review, federal officials delivered Harvard a laundry list of ultimatums, including changes to academic programming and “meaningful governance reforms.” If the university complied, it had a chance — but no guarantee — to continue receiving federal funding, the task force said.

In response, Harvard became the first well-known institution to rebuke the Trump administration’s demands. Alan Garber, president of Harvard, said the task force’s desired oversight oversteps its authority and infringes on the university’s constitutional rights.

“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he said in a Monday statement.

Upon Garber’s defiance, the task force froze billions of the university’s federal funding and made further demands, including that it “audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity.”

On Wednesday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Harvard was “bending the knee to antisemitism” under “its spineless leadership.”

The department is now demanding that the university hand over “detailed records on Harvard’s foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities” by the end of the month or immediately lose its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification.

International students studying the U.S. cannot attend a college that is not SEVP approved.

The program has gained national attention in recent weeks as waves of foreign students studying in the U.S. have had their visas revoked, often without warning or explanation. DHS is facing several lawsuits over its actions.

In 2024-25, 6,793 international students attended Harvard, making up 27.2% of the university’s enrollment, according to institutional data.

“If Harvard cannot verify it is in full compliance with its reporting requirements, the university will lose the privilege of enrolling foreign students,” DHS said in a statement.

Following Harvard’s condemnation of federal interference attempts, Trump ratcheted up his criticism of the university online.

“Harvard can no longer be considered even a decent place of learning, and should not be considered on any list of the World’s Great Universities or Colleges,” he said in a Wednesday social media post. “Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

In a separate post, he said that Harvard should “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”

The Internal Revenue Service is reportedly making arrangements to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, according to CNN.

It’s not clear that the Trump administration would have gone easier on Harvard had it complied.

Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, agreed to a similar round of task force demands following the cancellation of $400 million in federal contracts and grants. The task force praised the university’s compliance but has yet to publicly reinstate its funding. The Trump administration also reportedly began pursuing a consent decree against Columbia, which would give the federal courts increased oversight of the institution.

Columbia has since followed Harvard’s lead. In a Monday statement, its newly-appointed acting president said the university “would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community.”
Source link
April 17, 2025
Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands
Last Friday, three federal agencies sent a demand letter to Harvard University laying out conditions for the university to continue receiving federal funds. The letter is unprecedented in its scope. It would essentially render Harvard a vassal institution, subjecting much of its corporate and academic governance to federal directives.

If Harvard acceded to these demands, faculty hiring, student admissions, student and faculty disciplinary procedures, university programming decisions, student group recognition processes, and much more would be transformed to align with the government’s ideological preferences.

Among other things, the university would be required to:
- Abolish ideological litmus tests in hiring and admissions practices and take steps to ensure viewpoint diversity in the faculty and student body. How Harvard can take both steps simultaneously and also commit to merit-based hiring and admissions, another directive, is unclear. FIRE opposes ideological litmus tests, but you can’t abolish them by trading one litmus test for another.
- Deny admission to international students who are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.” These values go undefined. And, as any historian or Supreme Court observer would know, they’re subject to intense debate and varied interpretations. Ironically, this is also an ideological litmus test of the sort prohibited by the directive that Harvard abolish such tests.
- Audit certain disfavored academic departments. The mandatory audit would include investigations into individual faculty members and would require Harvard to work hand in glove with the government to sanction faculty members who allegedly engaged in anti-Semitic discrimination or otherwise “incited students to violate Harvard’s rules.” The federal government’s definition of anti-Semitism incorporates the IHRA definition, which Harvard recently adopted and FIRE has long criticized as violating First Amendment standards.
- Discontinue DEI. This would include shuttering all “programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives” relating to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” These terms also go undefined in the letter, and while FIRE has been critical of many university DEI programs for their tendency to chill and censor speech, not all of them do, and many programs are within a university’s prerogative to create. This is especially true at private institutions.
- Reform student disciplinary processes and procedures. The letter demands Harvard not fund or recognize any student group that “endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.” This amounts to a federal requirement of viewpoint discrimination. While many would find these categories of speech abhorrent, the categories go undefined and would nevertheless be protected by the First Amendment so long as the speech stays confined to endorsement and promotion and the student groups do not themselves engage in any criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment. The letter also identifies specific student groups that must lose recognition and funding.
- Implement a comprehensive mask ban. Masks can be used by criminals to commit crimes, the sick to stay healthy, and, yes, protesters to remain anonymous. A blanket mask ban is an overbroad requirement that infringes on individuals’ constitutional right to anonymous speech.
- Risk double jeopardy. The letter demands that Harvard “carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years.” To the extent any student was already tried for these alleged violations, this requirement would amount to “double jeopardy,” violating the venerated and centuries-old principle of fundamental fairness, enshrined in the Fifth Amendment, that says no individual should be tried for the same infraction twice.
- Generally reform corporate governance structure and practices, including by “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” in its current structure. How Harvard governs its academic programs, and who should have a say in that governance, is up to Harvard, not the federal government. The First Amendment and basic principles of academic freedom require no less.
In addition to these demands, the university would be required to undergo frequent and highly intrusive audits to ensure compliance. In short, the federal government would effectively serve as president and provost of Harvard University.

The ostensible justification for these demands stems from the government’s belief that Harvard has allowed for a hostile environment for Jewish students in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. But federal law also dictates specific procedures for adjudicating alleged noncompliance — procedures the government circumvented here.

If allowed to stand, the government could revoke federal funding from any institution regardless of the merit of the government’s allegations. This processless approach is a loaded gun for partisan administrations to target institutions and individuals that dissent from administration policies and priorities.

What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

It’s true that institutions take federal funding voluntarily. But it’s also true that the government cannot condition federal funding on institutions giving up their autonomy and constitutional rights. A requirement that Harvard relinquish its authority to guide core academic programs certainly violates its free speech and academic freedom rights, as well as those of its students and faculty.

It’s also true that Harvard doesn’t have clean hands. For the past two years, it has sat at the bottom of FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings, and it may well have violated Title VI by failing to meaningfully respond to conduct creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus. But just as with individuals, we don’t punish institutions based on allegations alone. And we cannot restore free speech with censorship.

This isn’t the first time FIRE has objected to a presidential administration using federal civil rights law to violate rights. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, the federal government weaponized Title IX to erode campus due process and free speech protections. The fight over the Obama/Biden rules lasted over a decade, and has been largely resolved (for now) in court and with President Trump’s Department of Education promulgating federal rules that protect free speech and due process rights in campus sexual misconduct investigations.

That’s why we’re deeply concerned that the administration doesn’t recognize that what was wrong and unlawful in the Title IX context is also wrong and unlawful in the Title VI context. Indeed, these federal requirements go even further than what we saw in the Title IX context.

Fortunately, Harvard is fighting back. Yesterday, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote in an open letter:

The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.

Garber’s response didn’t sit well with the federal government, which soon announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university. The fight will continue.

What Harvard does — for better or worse — others follow. Those of us who support free inquiry, academic freedom, and fair procedures on campus — not to mention institutional autonomy — can hope that maybe its action will inspire other institutions to grow a backbone.

There is some evidence of that already. On the same day Harvard announced it was rejecting the administration’s demands, Columbia University’s new acting president announced Columbia would not agree to any federal demands that “require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”

In addition to Columbia, the administration also froze grants at Cornell University and Northwestern University and is investigating nearly 60 other universities.

Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. Until more universities stand alongside Harvard in opposing the government’s unconstitutional demands, we can be sure these demands won’t be the last.
Source link
April 15, 2025
Harvard Resists Trump’s Demands

Protesters in Cambridge urged Harvard to resist Trump’s demands at a Saturday rally.

Erin Clark/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

Harvard University is pushing back on demands from the Trump administration calling for a long list of institutional reforms in response to alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations on campus.

Nearly $9 billion in federal contracts and grants hang in the balance at the institution amid a review the administration announced last month, alleging the university has mishandled instances of antisemitic harassment on campus.

President Alan Garber said Monday that the institution will not accept the administration’s agreement, writing that Harvard “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

Hours later, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in multiyear grant funding for the institution and $60 million in multiyear contracts.

The Trump administration presented Harvard with at least two demand letters, the first on April 3 and another on Friday. The letters call for changes to governance, hiring and admissions, a ban on masks, and more, including greater scrutiny of international applicants to exclude “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism,” according to one letter.

“Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise,” top officials at the General Services Administration, U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services wrote in Friday’s letter to Harvard leadership.

Friday’s letter also called for a mask ban; a shutdown of all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; and the reformation of multiple programs “with egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.” Targets include Harvard’s Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic and several others.

The administration also called for the university to “commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”

In a public letter to the Harvard community, Garber rejected the sweeping demands.

“Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to ‘maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.’ It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Garber wrote. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

Garber’s letter rejecting Trump’s demands also included a link to the legal response sent to the federal government, which noted changes to campus policies and “new accountability procedures” introduced at the university over the course of the last 15 months.

“It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court,” lawyers representing the university wrote in response.

In addition to freezing more than $2 billion in federal funding, the joint task force responded to the institution’s rejection, saying, “Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges—that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.”

Harvard’s pushback is a rare repudiation of Trump from an individual institution. While various associations and faculty groups have spoken up on the federal government’s attacks on higher education, most college presidents have been silent, even at targeted institutions. (Only a few, such as Princeton University president Christopher Eisgruber, have publicly expressed concerns.)

Last month Columbia University yielded to a sweeping list of similar demands, despite concerns by various legal scholars, as the Trump administration froze $400 million in federal research funding. Since then, Columbia interim president Katrina Armstrong has stepped down and the U.S. National Institutes of Health have frozen another $250 million in funding, despite the agreement. While Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said Columbia is on the “right track” to restore funding, that hasn’t happened yet, and the federal government is reportedly seeking more oversight.

Dozens of colleges across the nation—including others in the Ivy League—are also facing investigations into alleged antisemitism and other issues, including race-based programs or scholarships and the participation of transgender athletes in intercollegiate athletics.

Universities that have had their federal funding targeted include Cornell University (more than $1 billion), Northwestern University ($790 million), Brown University ($510 million), Princeton University ($210 million) and the University of Pennsylvania ($175 million).

Harvard’s rebuttal to the federal government comes as the university plans to issue $750 million in bonds, which a spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed was “part of ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances.” Princeton is also issuing $320 million in bonds this spring.

Harvard faculty have also taken legal action against the Trump administration.

The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Friday alleging that the review of Harvard’s funds was an illegal exploitation of the Civil Rights Act and an effort to impose political views upon the institution.

The lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration’s “unlawful actions have already caused severe and irreparable harm by halting academic research and inquiry at Harvard, including in areas that have no relation whatsoever to charges of antisemitism or other civil rights violations.”

Harvard’s AAUP chapter also signed a lawsuit last month with other faculty groups pushing back on the Trump administration’s efforts to arrest and deport pro-Palestinian student activists.

Source link

April 14, 2025