Donald Trump Tries to Run Harvard
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Trump Administration on Monday froze $2.2 billion in funds to Harvard after the university refused to surrender to its sweeping demands. Few Americans will shed tears for the Cambridge crowd, but there are good reasons to oppose this unprecedented attempt by government to micromanage a private university.
Stipulate that the feds have a duty to enforce civil-rights laws, and Harvard failed to protect Jewish students during anti-Israel protests. But the university agreed to strengthen protections for Jewish students in a legal settlement with Students Against Antisemitism, which praised it for “implementing effective long-term changes.”
The Trump Administration nonetheless demanded last week that Harvard accede to what is effectively a federal receivership under threat of losing $9 billion. Some of the demands are within the government’s civil-rights purview, such as requiring Harvard to discipline students who violate its discrimination policies. It also wants Harvard to “shutter all diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, under “whatever name,” that violate federal law.
But the Administration runs off the legal rails by ordering Harvard to reduce “governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization.” It also orders the school to review “all existing and prospective faculty . . . for plagiarism” and ensure “viewpoint diversity” in “each department, field, or teaching unit.”
These reforms may be worth pursuing, but the government has no business requiring them. Its biggest overreach is requiring “viewpoint diversity,” which it doesn’t define. Does this mean the English department must hire more Republican faculty or Shakespeare scholars? An external monitor will decide such questions.
If the monitor finds insufficient diversity, however defined, the university must hire “a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide” that diversity and admit “a critical mass of students” to provide the same. Must Harvard ask applicants if they support Mr. Trump and impose ideological quotas in hiring and admissions?
Harvard is bound by the High Court’s Students for Fair Admissions precedent (2023), which prohibits racial preferences in admissions. The Administration offers no evidence that Harvard is violating the law but intends a fishing expedition to prove it is. It demands to audit Harvard’s hiring and admissions data and publish admissions rates disaggregated by race, GPA and test scores.
Is the aim to use disparate impact analysis—a favorite tool of the left—to tag Harvard with discrimination? Even race-neutral policies—such as admitting more students from low-income schools—might result in racially disparate outcomes. At least the Biden and Obama Administrations did investigations before bringing down a Title IX hammer. The Trump team is shooting first and investigating later.
In a better world, Harvard and all colleges would be less dependent on Washington for money. But Republicans can’t seem to muster the courage to reform the student-loan program, such as capping graduate loans, which would force universities to shrink administrative bloat and politicized departments.
In any case, much of the federal money Harvard receives supports medical research and affiliated hospitals including Boston Children’s. Harvard could fund some though not all of such research with its $53 billion endowment, but there are sure to be casualties from the Administration’s hostage-taking, including perhaps cancer patients.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government may not use federal benefits or funds to coerce parties to surrender their constitutional rights. This is what the Administration is doing by demanding Harvard accede to “viewpoint diversity.”
The Administration is also overstepping its authority by imposing sweeping conditions on funds that weren’t spelled out by Congress. The Justices held in Cummings (2022) that “if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously” to ensure the recipient “voluntarily and knowingly accept[ed] the terms.”
Congress can pass a law to advance Mr. Trump’s higher-ed reforms, such as reporting admissions data. But the Administration can’t unilaterally and retroactively attach strings to grants that are unrelated to their purpose. President Trump has enough balls in the air without also trying to run Harvard.
Tags
Who is online
29 visitors
There are still some shreds of sanity in the Conservative world.
These reforms may be worth pursuing, but the government has no business requiring them.
Actually, withholding money and taxing the endowment may finally break the left's grip on Harvard. This is one thing that I had hoped Trump would do. I am proud of him for doing it.
Please use quotation marks ... ty.
Why? The shading isn't enough?
I do not see any shading and my eyes are just fine. Don't be so lazy ...
It was shaded in gray, just like you did with my quote. Where are your quote marks?
The grey bar indicates that ... just how long have you been a member here?
It's also been suggested that the IRS revisit the 501c3 designation that Harvard has. That's some fricking hardball tactics right there.
"In any case, much of the federal money Harvard receives supports medical research and affiliated hospitals including Boston Children’s. Harvard could fund some though not all of such research with its $53 billion endowment, but there are sure to be casualties from the Administration’s hostage-taking, including perhaps cancer patients."
Just shows that DEI is more important to Harvard than medical research.
You can make that statement while defending the Trump administration????
Trump Team Dismantles Efforts to Find a Cure for Cancer and Other Deadly Disorders and Diseases
What do Trump’s NIH restrictions mean for cancer research?
How about commenting on my comment?
Ozzwald did just that!
He deflected to Trump.
I guess Trump's name was not included in the headline and 6-7 more times within the article ... Opps, my mistake ... or were you deflecting away from Trump?
Nice try but the comment he responded to was about Harvard's decision, not Trump
On the other side of the coin it shows that defunding Harvard over DEI nonsense is more important to Trump than medical research ... why else would he appoint RFK jr to run anything?
Yes it seems that way. I guess Trump doesn't buy into DEI discrimination.
Nope, he just buys into old fashioned racist discrimination.
Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe in '70s
"It also wants Harvard to “shutter all diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, under “whatever name,” that violate federal law."
The Trump administration may not legally order that Harvard must adopt certain academic goals, but that they can lose federal funds and/or be sued for discrimination of any sort
We're all old enough to remember when the federal government did that to states back during the oil crisis to get them to drop the highway speed limits to 55.
Good seed. It will be "interesting" to see where this goes.
If Trump University is an example of of his ability to run a university this will be a world class joke.
the criminal traitor POS/POTUS has got his beady eyes on that $50B endowment ...
Harvard should issue Trump a Dishonorable Degree.