The Trump administration has threatened to cut funding to a number of universities unless they take action to combat anti-Semitism as well as comply with federal nondiscrimination law. I haven’t seen reports on how other schools have responded, but Harvard has refused to comply with the administration’s requests. As usual, reporting on this controversy has been less than illuminating.
First, what exactly did the Trump administration ask of Harvard? It is a long list, in ten categories. You can read the full letter here, but these are brief summaries:
* “Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including:” A long list follows, including items like “reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship.”
* “Merit-Based Hiring Reform.” This asks Harvard to “cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” in hiring. In other words, comply with federal law.
* “Merit-Based Admissions Reform.” This essentially asks Harvard to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in its race discrimination case, as well as doing away with other illegal preferences.
* “International Admissions Reform.” The administration wants Harvard to reform its international recruitment and admissions practices to “prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.”
* “Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring.” The administration wants Harvard 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.” And “every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.”
* “Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias.” This item includes a list of Harvard programs and schools that the administration thinks are guilty of anti-Semitism, and asks for an “external party” to audit those organizations.
* “Discontinuation of DEI.” Self-explanatory.
* “Student Discipline Reform and Accountability.” There is a long list of measures that the administration wants Harvard to take to “reform its student discipline policies and procedures.”
* “Whistleblower Reporting and Protections.” This protects anyone who reports violations of the proposed agreement between the administration and Harvard.
* “Transparency and Monitoring.” “The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report-certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter.”
Harvard’s President, Alan Garber, responded to the administration’s letter here. Needless to say, Harvard rejected the administration’s proposal. I would have. The proposal treats Harvard essentially like a company that is in receivership and is now to be managed under government direction.
Some of the points raised in the government’s letter are legally enforceable. Thus, Harvard can’t discriminate in employment or admissions on the basis of race, sex, etc. As a result, DEI is, in my opinion, illegal, and there may be future litigation or enforcement activity in that regard. And the university’s failure to take action against anti-Semitism may expose it to claims by Jewish students or staff, or perhaps to liability under some provision of federal law. But the administration’s proposals go far beyond any legal obligations Harvard might have.
News accounts indicate that around $2.2 billion in multi-year grants have been, or will be, “frozen.” I am not sure what that means. Press accounts seem to assume that the money will never be paid, but it may be that the administration will review the grants and continue with the ones it deems worthwhile. There may be some legal basis on which Harvard can claim that some of the grant money must be paid (e.g., a reliance interest), but so far the university doesn’t seem to be taking that position.
I don’t blame Harvard for turning down the Trump administration’s offer, but nor do I blame the administration for cutting off (or at least scrutinizing) funding of Harvard. Harvard has an endowment of around $53 billion, so it isn’t easy to see why it should be operating on the taxpayer’s dime. (But see this Axios story suggesting that it will not be easy for the university to make up for the loss of federal funds, largely because most of its endowment is subject to donor restrictions on its use.) Of course Harvard’s complaints about the impact of federal support focus on medical research. But how much of the federal money actually goes to support medical research, or other defensible causes, I don’t know.
So far, this drama has played out in a wholly predictable way. The administration’s demands on Harvard and other institutions are an opening shot in what promises to be a long war.
