Ivy League institution, Harvard, confronts repercussions for controversial actions

Fiery Speech and Seeking Real Truth Arrested Way Before Trump

Picture by: Getty.

By: Jeff Wyatt

6th June 2025 Picture by: Getty.

News & Politics USA

Are you a pumped-up sprat? Consider subscribing to this site!

Trump's administration is mashing the snooze button on America's Crown Jewel, Harvard University. It's Unleashing Brutal Blows against Harvard for disregarding civil rights laws by tolerating bias and prejudice. Federal funds have been Frozen, with all contracts put on hold and even the possibility of losing tax-exempt status. Trump himself has even signaled plans to yank the university's tax-exempt status. A Republican budget act is also cooking up higher taxes for Harvard and other university endowments. Recently, attempts have been made to halt Harvard's foreign student enrollment, but a judge has temporarily put the kibosh on this.

All of this unfolds after Harvard decided to fight back - suing the administration if it bowed to the administration's demands laid out in a letter dated April, which included allowing the government to snoop on hiring and admission decisions, scrutinize faculty, students, and staff for viewpoint diversity, ban students hostile to American values, and submit regular updates to the administration - among other demands[1][2][5].

However, despite Harvard's monstrous $53 billion endowment, these Trumpian budget cuts could still spell financial doom if implemented. Barring foreign students, who account for 27% of Harvard's overall enrollment and a sizable portion of its earnings, would mean GCSE-level economics - it means instant apocalypse. According to one Harvard professor, it's "a life-extinction event"[6].

Harvard and President Alan Garber refuse to engage with the administration and, instead, seem pumped up to engage in an all-out brawl. Opponents of Trump - Harvard's broader community, Democrats, and sympathetic media - cheer Garber as a hero, the face of renewed "Resistance". Bernie Sanders even congratulated Harvard for standing up against Trump's totalitarianism[7]. Garber even received a standing ovation at Harvard's recent graduation ceremony.

Harvard defends its stance as a fight against government overreach onto academic affairs, especially the administration's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the "ideology" of its faculty and students[8]. Harvard believes that criticisms hurled its way are baseless and that it doesn't require significant reforms[8]. Trump, according to Harvard, is motivated by animosity towards higher education, and the issue of anti-Semitism allegations is merely a pretext for destroying institutions he views as an enemy[9].

Give us a Clap?

Want to tip us a few coins?

We rely on you. Thanks, buddy!

Throw in your donation amount

But Harvard's problems aren't just figments of Trump's imagination. Despite the latter's disdain for elite universities, many criticisms leveled against Harvard are legitimate[10].

A recent internal report by the Presidential Taskforce on Combating Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Bias highlights anti-Semitic incidents as rampant at Harvard, even in the form of harassment, intimidation, and violence towards Jewish students[10]. Anti-Semitism is just one particularly repulsive symptom of a broader campus-wide identity politics and anti-Western ideology, championed by faculty and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucrats alike. The DEI mindset has had actual impacts on hiring and admissions, and the Trump team's investigations into potential racial discrimination are justified[10]. Harvard has a history of penalizing professors like Carole Hooven, Ronald Sullivan, and Roland Fryer, for straying from the woke orthodoxy[10]. 'Veritas' is Harvard's motto, but there's solid ground for arguing Harvard long abandoned its mission to state and seek the truth[10].

Been Digging This Site?

How about throwing us a bone?

We appreciate ya!

Make a donation

Garber claims Harvard has already remodeled itself, making government oversight redundant. He's got a point – Harvard recently restricted reckless protests, removed mandatory diversity statements for new hires, canceled racially segregated graduations, and enforced institutional neutrality on political issues[2]. However, these reforms are feeble and grudging, overshadowed by the vast amount of change needed[2].

Harvard's actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than its claims of reform. Its own internal report demonstrated that anti-Semitism remains widespread, and it remains reluctant to tackle the root causes among faculty and the curriculum[2]. In other areas, Harvard's reforms seem cosmetic[2]. Internal documents gathered by conservative activist Christopher Rufo suggest Harvard continues to favor certain racial groups in hiring[12]. Despite the US Supreme Court striking down Harvard's admissions criteria for unfairly discriminating against Asian students in June 2023, the university remains seemingly unrepentant - with the percentage of Asian students admitted to the Class of 2028 staying the same[12].

Perhaps the most symbolic sign of Harvard's refusal to transform is the continued employment of tarnished former president Claudine Gay, condescendingly known as "the DEI enforcer-in-chief" and an accused plagiarist, who still rakes in a cool $900,000 a year as a professor in the political science department[11][12].

Liberals may call Harvard a hero defending academic freedom and opposing government meddling, but that defense appears more opportunistic than principled[8]. Harvard's defense has found some sympathy among critics of the university. The university has long been on the naughty step when it comes to free speech and respecting academic freedom[11]. The university's current stand against government interference contrasts with its compliance under earlier Democratic administrations. Harvard, for instance, did not sue the government in 2011 or 2016 when the Obama administration dished out threats to cut funding unless universities stripped male students accused of sexual assault of due-process protections or allowed transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms[8].

The confrontation between Trump and Harvard is likely to rage for years, with both sides poised for a marathon. In the short run, Harvard might win some legal battles. The administration's scattershot tactics and disregard for procedural aspects and proportionality could invite legal challenges. However, Trump possesses two key plus points that could shift the legal and public opinion landscape in his favor.

Public Financing: As private entities that rely heavily on public funding, universities like Harvard function like semi-public institutions. If taxpayers are bankrolling them, it's reasonable to expect them to shoulder some accountability[11]. Simply put, no constitutional principle promises unlimited access to public funds for universities[11].
Lack of Popularity: Public trust in higher education is Hillary Clinton-antiquated, with only a third of Americans now viewing universities as valuable, down from nearly 60% a decade ago[13]. Many Americans see universities as bitter adversaries of their values, blaming them for unpopular policies like males competing in women's sports. After years of condescending Napoleonics, Harvard can hardly expect the working class to rush to its defense. Many families might even welcome Trump's promise to divert billions in federal funding to trade schools[11].

The message coming from Harvard and its supporters is that Trump must be stopped from embarking on a totalitarian war on higher education. However, the more urgent mission at hand is for Harvard to admit its faults and reclaim its historical mission. Unless Harvard and other major universities commit to genuine reform - and there's little evidence hinting at intentional change - they will continue to face pressure, including demands for government oversight[11]. Harvard might resent the Trump backlash, but it may have dug its own grave.

Jeff Wyatt is a journalist based in Brooklyn, NY. Check out his column The New York Scene.

Who's Forking Out the Bills for This Site? It's YOU...

We are funded by you. And in this era of termination culture and ad boycotts, we need your donations more than ever. About 70% of our revenue comes from our readers' donations - most of whom give just $5 a month. If you make a regular donation of $5 a month or $50 a year, you can become abeing and enjoy:-Ad-free reading-Exclusive events-Access to our comments section

It's the best way to keep this site going (and growing). Thanks!

Wanna Join the Debate?

Only our site supporters and patrons who donate regularly can comment on our articles.

Join today### Most popular

Jo Bartosch

Sports

How Violence Against Women Became an Olympic Sport

Brendan O'Neill

USA

The Jew-burning in Colorado spearheads the West's fascistic pivot

Tom Slater

Free Speech

Welcome to the Islamic theocracy of Great Britain

Lionel Shriver

Identity Politics

Black Lives Matter was an outbreak of global hysteria

our site

Books

The personal must not be the political

Fraser Myers

Politics

Lord Hermer is a microcosm of Shadow Labour's demise

*Moreover, Harvard claims it has already reinvented itself, making unnecessary government oversight. Indeed, Harvard has implemented several changes, including stricter restrictions on disruptive protests, eliminating mandatory diversity statements for new hires, canceling racially segregated graduation ceremonies, and adopting a policy of institutional neutrality on political issues. But these changes are too little and come late, aiming to appease without addressing the heart of the matter adequately[2][14].

Harvard's inaction contrasts sharply with its responses when subjected to political pressure. After a congressional hearing in late 2023, the Trump administration's demands, and Trump's return to the White House, Harvard began to make reforms modestly[9]. As Pinker himself observes, many Harvard reforms followed Trump's inauguration and align with his demands[15]. Still, Harvard can scarcely expect support from the working class, given its long history of flouting free speech and academic independence[9][16].

The Trump administration's demands have sparked reasonable concerns about excessive government meddling in academia and the risk to academic freedom[9]. However, elite universities have established a tradition of abusing the academic freedom granted to them[17]. Administrators and faculty members use this autonomy to turn these institutions into echo chambers of ideological dogmas, setting aside scholarship for partisan activism[17]. As a result, government pushback becomes inevitable[17].

The struggle between Harvard and Trump is likely to persist for years, as both sides have the resources for a lengthy standoff[9]. In the short run, Harvard might win some battles, given that the administration's methods are procedurally flawed and sometimes disproportionate, and appear more retributive than reformatory[17]. However, Trump has two crucial advantages that could turn the tides in court and public opinion[17].

First, universities like Harvard rely heavily on government funding, making them, in effect, semi-public entities[17]. If taxpayers are funding them, they have a right to some oversight[17]. No constitutional principle promises Harvard unlimited access to public funds[17].

Second, and perhaps more critically, Harvard and other Ivy League institutions are deeply unpopular. Public trust in higher education is plummeting, with only about a third of Americans now considering universities valuable[18]. Many Americans see universities as hostile to their values and see them as primarily responsible for unpopular policies, such as biological males competing in women's sports[18]. After years of elitist condescension, Harvard can hardly expect the common man to march for its rescue. Some families might even applaud Trump's promise to reallocate the federal funds earmarked for elite universities to technical schools[18].

In conclusion, Harvard fights a struggle that it largely brought upon itself[18]. The decision to sue the administration and refuse negotiations might have won sympathy, but it has pushed the administration's hand to take aggressive steps against Harvard. For universities like Harvard, transformative change is necessary to regain the trust of the public and the government and escape the cycle of government backlash[18].

The Trump administration has froze federal funds for Harvard University, citing violations of civil rights laws due to tolerance of bias and prejudice.
The Trump administration's plans include yanking Harvard's tax-exempt status and increasing taxes for university endowments, as part of a Republican budget act.
Education-and-self-development and general-news publications are reporting on the financial and political implications of these proposed changes for Harvard.
Free speech and education-and-self-development advocates argue that the Trump administration's actions against Harvard may signify government overreach and threaten academic freedom.

Ivy League institution, Harvard, confronts repercussions for controversial actions