In the wake of October 7, pro-Palestinian demonstrations and encampments erupted in universities around the country. They often devolved into antisemitism, where Jewish students were attacked, intimidated, and feared going to class. The Trump administration began an investigation of 60 universities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act for failing to address antisemitism on campus and failing to protect Jewish students. And in January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order on antisemitism that expanded federal oversight and threatened to withdraw federal grants. While some universities, such as Columbia, Brown, and the University of California, complied with the order, Harvard refused and took the administration to court.
Among the accusations lodged at Harvard by the government were tolerance of antisemitism on campus, consideration of race in admissions, DEI (diversity) training, and allowing transgender athletes to play on teams with players of the opposite gender. Although the Trump administration has gone after many universities and colleges for the same things, Harvard’s $53 billion in endowments and large share of research awards has made it a prime target for Trump.
Days after Harvard commenced
litigation against the federal government, Agudath Israel of America issued a
statement chiding the school for focusing its energy on fighting Trump rather
than combating antisemitism. Agudath Israel thanked the government for its
moral clarity and principled stance on the issue, even as Harvard chose to
fight the administration wholesale rather than taking steps to reform or
rectify the situation. According to the Agudah, “Federal funding will be tied
up, research will be halted, and Jewish students will remain less protected as
the case wends its way through the courts.” Instead, reforms were needed to make
Jewish students feel safe on campus.
What Did the Court Rule?
Can the federal government attach
strings to federal funding of private colleges? A federal district judge has issued
a resounding “No!” Judge Allison Burroughs of the
Massachusetts District Court has ordered the Trump administration to
reinstate nearly $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University as well as $60
million in contracts that were frozen and terminated when the Ivy League
refused to meet certain preconditions for funding from the federal government. Harvard
then sued the federal government. In an 84-page opinion issued on September 3, Judge
Burroughs found that the administration unconstitutionally
engaged in retaliation against Harvard and that the decision to freeze funding
was arbitrary and capricious.
In a letter sent to Harvard in
early April, the Trump administration threatened to put the University in
receivership if it did not conduct an outside audit of “viewpoint diversity,
such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually
viewpoint diverse.” The Trump administration also demanded that the University achieve
“critical mass” in new teachers and students. Harvard was also required to
install “new leadership in problematic departments.” Harvard balked at such
conditions, and the administration froze its funding.
In the college context, receivership
is a process that usually occurs when a department is incohesive, thus
threatening the unity of that department. Receivership is also used to force a
department to rally around a college-wide goal. According to the Daily
Princetonian, a college will want to implement policies it considers a
priority; this can include appointing an outside chair, usually from a separate
department. However, the threat of government placing a university in
receivership is “unprecedented,” says the Princetonian.
The Anti-Defamation League, which purports
to fight antisemitism, called Trump’s actions an “overreach.” According to the
ADL’s president and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, combatting antisemitism should be
about combatting antisemitism – nothing more, nothing less. While Harvard
needed to do a better job of affording the same privileges and protections to
Jewish students as all other students, he thinks this should be done through
mandatory training on tolerance toward Jews as opposed to cuts in funding to
the university at large.
During oral arguments in the
Harvard grant freeze case, Judge Allison Burroughs disclosed
her Jewish faith. In response to the Trump administration’s argument that it
was not engaged in retaliation but rather was motivated by a desire to combat antisemitism,
Judge Burroughs parroted Harvard’s argument that the government was “curtailing
speech.” The judge also stated: “It is unlikely that any
Jew, even one directly impacted by antisemitism, would be in favor of stopping
research on, for example, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, or autism, to
name a few, as a means of redressing their unrelated harm.” In other words,
stopping antisemitism cannot be achieved by cutting medical research funding,
according to the judge.
Speech cannot
be curtailed in the name of the Jewish people today, said Burroughs, because if
the political winds were to change tomorrow, “the speech of Jews (or anyone
else) can be curtailed.” By that logic, we should not stop hate speech that
leads to violence against Muslims because the same tools used to curtail such
violence could lead to Jews losing the right to speak freely tomorrow. According
to Judge Burroughs, Trump’s fight against Harvard was not even about fighting
antisemitism; rather, the funding cut was about “political power.”
What Is Trump’s Argument?
Throughout
the case, Trump had accused the judge of being a liberal Obama appointee who
would rule against him no matter what. Before the case was brought, the
President took to Truth Social to say, “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!” Trump later
said that every time Harvard fights, it loses $250 million. The administration
also threatened Harvard’s ability to host international students.
Trump administration spokesperson
Liz Huston has warned that “Harvard does not have a constitutional right to
taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.” Jonathan Tobin, editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate,
agreed. During the Harvard funding freeze litigation, he wrote that American
universities can be leftist indoctrination centers but that the American people
were under no obligation to fund them. Furthermore, the American public
is not “obliged to let [Harvard and other universities] become centers for
bringing people into the country to harass Jews or agitate for leftist policies
under the guise of education.” By going to the courts rather than negotiating
in good faith with the Trump administration, Harvard has shown that it is
willing to lose billions in federal grant dollars rather than give up woke
policies – or help Jewish students.
Where Do Things Stand?
Settlement talks between Harvard
and the Trump administration have now stalled. There is a divide in the White
House between those who want to be tough on the Ivy League and those who want
to give Trump a victory by announcing a deal. According to Fox News, some Trump
advisors have suggested that any agreement would have added teeth if Harvard
were to hire an independent monitor, but this is something the university has
resisted all along.
It seems that the Trump administration
sees itself losing on appeal, although it is likely to appeal anyway, according
to the New York Sun. Harvard wants to keep its diversity programs,
transgender athletics, and race-based admissions but also wants to show that it
is serious about protecting Jews on campus. However, its court victory will
give Harvard leverage in any negotiations with the federal government.
Harvard may
have won this case, but at what cost? The Wall Street Journal has called
the decision a “pyrrhic” victory for the university: “Certainly, Harvard
has won this battle. But the war against higher education remains in full force.”
And Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, told the New
York Times that the federal government may stop issuing new grants to
Harvard in the future, may prove defiant to the Massachusetts District Court’s order
to unfreeze federal monies, and might find other ways to withhold funds from
Harvard. It is amid this uncertainty that Harvard’s leaders have turned to
settlement talks as a way to “preserve academic independence while locking in
some certainty about the way ahead,” according to the Times.
Hopefully, a compromise can be
reached where colleges will make good on commitments to prevent violent
protests on campus while helping Jews feel proud to display their beliefs.
Programs to raise awareness of Jewish perspectives can be helpful, but to get
colleges to clamp down on those who threaten us, there has to be a mechanism to
cut funding. Departments, clubs, and students who impede on the rights of
Jewish students should not be rewarded either. The fight is far from over.
