As Columbia Folds, Harvard Shows What Institutional Courage Looks Like
The first few months of the Trump administration have seen a quick divergence between those who are quick to bend the knee to unconstitutional, authoritarian, censorial demands from Donald Trump, and those with the spine to actually stand up and say “fuck that.”
While it’s important to call out and shame those who cave, it’s equally crucial to highlight institutions willing to take a principled stand. What’s unfolding now at Harvard isn’t just about one university’s funding or academic policies — it’s a critical test case for whether America’s institutions can withstand direct governmental attempts to control speech and thought. The precedent being set will determine whether universities remain independent centers of learning and research, or become extensions of whatever administration holds power. This week, Harvard University has demonstrated what institutional courage looks like in the face of escalating threats from the Trump administration.
Donald Trump’s assault on free speech and the independence of private entities continues apace. The administration has been on something of an authoritarian tour across the country, spanning multiple verticals, in which the main goal appears to simply be to exert as much power as possible, breaking both norms and institutional safeguards with wild abandon.
Trump and his cadre of minions have been playing language games all along in this endeavor, attempting to redefine free speech as only applicable to speech Trump likes, exposing journalists and their sources to danger, punishing university students for exercising their speech rights, and coercing law firms into “good behavior” by withholding security clearances if the firms have or do take any actions the administration doesn’t like.
It’s hard to overstate just how wildly dangerous this all is, nor how infuriating it is to watch so many of these victims bend the knee rather than fight what is undeniably a battle worth waging. What’s at stake is nothing less than the independence of American institutions. The administration is currently using federal education and research grants like the sword of Damocles, insisting that schools fall in line or risk losing government money that powers all kinds of valuable, important research. But as Columbia University recently learned, there is never a “last ask” from a strongman and the sword never rises beyond an inch from the neck. Giving in only propels the next demand. And then the next. And the next.
The Trump administration recently made all kinds of demands of Harvard, a bizarre mix of demands to end diversity in some places, but mandate it in others, while making other demands that would essentially amount to the school caving to Trump. The demands represent an unprecedented level of government interference in a private institution. No more DEI initiatives for admissions or hiring. A requirement that data over such things be shared out freely with the federal government. Punishment for any students or groups deemed by the government to be “antisemitic.” And a overhaul of international admissions such that candidates are to be screened out if they have any “anti-American” viewpoints.
Except then the government also demands a very specific form of DEI: diverse viewpoints in all programs and departments.
After having presented Harvard’s existing diversity efforts as the antithesis of a merit-based approach, it suddenly demands that the university enforce what it terms viewpoint diversity. It never defines what this term means—perhaps alchemy in the chemistry department? But the implications are that it amounts to affirmative action for conservatives. Harvard is directed 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.” Any department that fails the audit would be required to start hiring new faculty until it can pass the undefined standards demanded by the feds.
Here again, we see the hypocrisy of the strongman on display. Diversity of thought when it comes to Israel? Banished! Diversity of thought on America’s actions and values? Verboten! Diversity of backgrounds within the student body and faculty itself? Nothing could be worse!
But there must be a quota carved out for the kind of thought that the government prefers or there will be punishment. Were we to need a perfect example of thought-policing in the modern era, it appears we have it.
Even entertaining such demands would amount to the takeover of a private educational institution by the federal government. And the research funding that the government is withholding isn’t for pet projects in niche circles. It’s funding for medical breakthroughs, for improving the lives of children. For technology advances that could improve the lives of Americans generally. That’s important, so please understand: the withholding of these federal funds from Harvard isn’t merely a punishment for Harvard, but a punishment for all of us.
Which is exactly what is happening, as the government has frozen billions in funds because Harvard has refused to bow at the altar of Donald Trump.
The university has decided these demands force it to fight, and it’s attacking on two fronts. The first is public-facing; Harvard has turned its homepage into a tribute to its researchers and the work they pursue. Although it starts with a huge banner article as shown here, links to 30 individual articles on research fill the entire page. I have a fairly high-resolution screen, and it took hitting page-down nine times to finally reach the bottom, where a handful of links to the rest of the university finally appear. The message is clear: The research that’s under threat matters, and humanity will be worse off if its funding is cut.
Separately, Harvard’s legal response, which it made public today, is basically: nope. After detailing the steps the university has already taken to address antisemitism, it gets to the crux of the issue: “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.” The harms these demands are meant to address, the letter alleges, haven’t actually been demonstrated through processes that are required by law.
Even more direct is the letter Harvard’s President, Alan Garber, sent to the Harvard community:
We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
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.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
This is a battle worth waging. Columbia’s funding is still on hold, despite its attempts at appeasement. I have no doubt the same would be true if Harvard attempted to do likewise. There will end up being a court battle over this, no doubt. One that will hopefully rise to the level of the Supreme Court and will surface an argument over how and why the Executive Administration should be able to hold for ransom funds allocated by Congress over the demand for the erasure of institutional independence.
The contrast between Columbia and Harvard couldn’t be clearer. As Columbia has shown, if you cave, Trump will still demand more and withhold funds. If you fight, you might still lose, but at least you’ll be able to sleep at night knowing you did the right thing. Plus, it’s contagious. While Columbia quickly caved to Trump’s demands, we’re seeing other universities stand up as well.
Princeton has indicated that it won’t fold. Cornell has sued the Department of Energy over the $1 billion in frozen grants. Stanford’s leadership has expressed support for Harvard as well. Fighting back is contagious and the right thing to do, both for the fundamental academic freedoms that these institutions of higher learning supposedly support, and to show a fascist bully that you won’t comply in advance.
It won’t be easy. Indeed, since Harvard’s pushback on Monday, Trump has made the $2.3 billion funding freeze official, effectively admitting that he is punishing the university for its free expression (which I’m sure will be useful in court). Trump is also musing about removing Harvard’s non-profit tax-exempt status:
That’s Donald Trump posting to his personal social media site:
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!
Some of us remember when it was a huge scandal — perhaps one of the biggest of all time — when the IRS under Obama investigated a few conservative non-profits to make sure they were obeying the law. I also remember how under the first Trump administration, the IRS was made to apologize to those non-profits and agreed to settle the cases. Yet, here, the very same Trump admin is just nakedly threatening to pull tax exempt status solely on the basis of not kissing up to Trump and his unconstitutional demands.
Equally, some of us also remember the misleading claims during previous administrations about the supposed lack of “free speech” on college campuses and will note how silent those who were screaming the loudest about that are now that Trump is just going door to door from university to university demanding the suppression of speech and punishing universities that oppose him.
This is an attack on all of us. It is an attack on the concept of higher learning. It is an attack on the concept of free speech and academic freedom. It is an attack on the important research that universities do that have bettered the lives of millions. It is an attack on American ideals.
Harvard’s stand represents something profound: institutions with resources, prestige, and power using those advantages to protect fundamental principles rather than themselves. In doing so, they remind us what genuine institutional courage looks like. While the courts will eventually weigh in, the immediate battle is being fought in the court of public opinion, where each institution’s response signals to others what’s possible. The cascade of universities now following Harvard’s lead suggests that principled stands — not capitulation — may become the new normal. So, kudos to Harvard and Princeton and Cornell, for doing what Columbia couldn’t be bothered to do. Hopefully more institutions of higher learning take the right lesson from this and recognize now is not the time to fold, but to stand up and do what’s right.