In a growing culture war, Harvard University has been targeted by the Trump administration’s new antisemitism task force. This unexpected review follows a year of attacks on the institution. The administration’s contention is that it has become an unsafe place for students to learn. Things got ugly when South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem followed up by sending a letter outlining even larger new demands for the university to meet. She cautioned that noncompliance risks the loss of the privilege to admit global students.
Harvard has been under pressure for months to change its hiring, admissions, and teaching practices in order to more effectively clamp down on antisemitism on campus. The university has admitted that it has heard the government’s concerns but has clearly and resolutely stated that it shall not back down on the demands. Harvard President Alan Garber emphasized, “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
The administration’s threats are not new, as Harvard has already been subjected to a freeze on around $2.2 billion of their federal funds. President Trump has threatened to retaliate against the university by revoking its tax-exempt status. He alleges the institution has failed to do enough to address antisemitism on campus. Nonetheless, Harvard argues that there is “no legal basis” for these moves.
International students make up more than 27% of Harvard’s student body. The administration has sent out a strong signal. If Harvard doesn’t comply with the Senate’s demands for records detailing its actions to combat antisemitism, it risks being barred from enrolling foreign students. Harvard has lashed out at such pressures by taking drastic measures. They removed leadership from within their Center for Middle Eastern Studies to confront the problem more directly.
The university’s response indicates a commitment to maintaining its principles while addressing antisemitism. Harvard deserves credit for agreeing to a rigorous re-evaluation of its admission practices. This effort is prejudiced against the goal of removing bias despite sweeping calls from the White House.
As tensions rise, it’s admirable to see Harvard sticking to its guns against outside pressures while still contorting itself to avoid the ire of federal actors. The future of this battle is very much up in the air, with both sides sticking to their guns.