On April 11, the White House delivered a shock letter to Harvard University. That set off a very public spat between the two organizations. Two others with knowledge of the situation have characterized the communication as an “unauthorized” move. The letter threatened to cut off funding unless Harvard not only ended its DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs but screened international students for ideological bias.
Climate Chair Josh Gruenbaum joined commissioner of the General Services Administration. In addition to Sean R. Kevney, the acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Thomas E. Wheeler, the acting general counsel of the Department of Education. Though it may look official, Harvard University immediately shot down the demands listed in this letter.
Like Harvard, the White House moved quickly after facing this rejection. They froze about $2.2 billion in grants that had already been promised to the university. This decision has gotten people’s attention because it could affect almost $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard currently receives. We were glad to see the White House take on antisemitism and other urgent issues when they met with Harvard this past fall. They underscored the importance and urgency of these discussions.
A spokesperson for Harvard noted the formal nature of the letter, stating, “the letter that Harvard received on Friday, April 11, was signed by three federal officials, placed on official letterhead, was sent from the e-mail inbox of a senior federal official, and was sent on April 11 as promised.” This language emphasizes the letter’s fraudulent nature and implies that anyone who receives this kind of mail generally would never doubt its legitimacy.
The ramifications of this rabbit-hole argument go beyond bureaucratic bickering. A representative for Harvard expressed concern over the real-life consequences stemming from government actions, stating, “Even if the letter was a mistake, the actions the government took this week have real-life consequences on students, patients, employees, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”
As the controversy unfolds, it remains unclear what aspects of the government’s actions were perceived as mistakes and what intentions lay behind them. A spokesperson remarked, “It remains unclear to us exactly what, among the government’s recent words and deeds, were mistakes or what the government actually meant to do and say.”
The White House has not responded to CNBC’s request for comment. This comes on the heels of our New York Times exclusive report that exposed that this letter was sent without authorization.