On Monday, Harvard University all but guaranteed they’d grab the headlines again. It quickly became the first institution to publicly push back against a wave of demands from the Trump administration. On Friday, this anti-affirmative action administration sent a letter to Harvard. It laid out a number of highly unpopular stipulations that the university needs to fulfill in order to maintain its socioeconomic agreement with the federal government.
Among their demands was the elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. Additionally, the administration requested that Harvard disclose various admissions details to federal authorities and report foreign students who commit conduct violations. The former Trump administration required that every department academic was required to submit for external audit scrutiny. This sought to promote “viewpoint diversity” across the student body, faculty, staff—and university leadership itself.
In response, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, firmly rejected the demands, describing them as “an attempt to control the Harvard community.” He told them that the university would never give in to threats from the feds.
“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” – Alan Garber
This is exactly what the Trump administration did. They made clear they would freeze more than $2 billion in multiyear grants and contracts with Harvard until the university met their demands. Former President Donald Trump also recently bombarded Harvard, deriding it as a “joke” that “cancels people” and “teaches hate and stupidity.” He suggested defunding it from the federal government. So when reports emerged last summer suggesting that the IRS was preparing to take Harvard’s tax-exempt status away, I cheered.
Given Harvard’s position, pro-student support has come from all sides. Countless Democratic politicians and elite universities around the country have joined in support of Harvard. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey praised the institution for standing firm against what she described as a “brazen attempt to bully schools and weaponize the US Department of Justice under the false pretext of civil rights.”
“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom,” – Barack Obama
Stanford University President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez expressed their enthusiasm in a public statement. They cheered Harvard for standing strong on its decision to defend its values.
These demands from the Trump administration set a troubling precedent that should send academic freedom and institutional independence into a tailspin. In his testimony, Garber was unequivocal in his frustration aimed at the administration. He contended that their actions are ultra vires and violate Harvard’s First Amendment 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,” – Alan Garber
As this awkward scenario plays out, it serves to underscore a larger battle brewing between research universities and federal watchdogs. These kinds of demands affect far more than just Harvard. Other universities are finding themselves at the center of intense public scrutiny for their diversity and inclusion initiatives.