Harvard University rejects Trump admin's demands, risking billions in funding

( I posted this here because although it is education related, it is also in the political realm)

Harvard University is refusing to comply with a series of demands from the Trump administration, potentially risking billions in federal funding. In a letter on Monday, Harvard University President Alan Garber said the school "will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights" by agreeing to a series of terms proposed by the Trump administration.

Harvard University rejects Trump admin's demands, risking billions in funding

The Trump Administration wants an apology

Leavitt: "He also wants to see Harvard apologize. And Harvard should apologize."

 

Happy to see Harvard stand up against this blatant overreach.

Columbia could learn a thing or two…

 

The Trump administration has been critical of Harvard’s and Columbia's etc., handling of student protests that intensified by the Gaza war.
It has accused the University of failing to adequately protect Jewish students on campus from antisemitic discrimination and harassment, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The critics of Harvard, Columbia policies and others are claiming it's one thing to stand for institutional independence; it's another to shield hostility and bias under the banner of academic freedom.
- While Harvard claims to be defending constitutional rights, many—including Jewish students and faculty—have raised serious concerns about rising antisemitism on campus that’s gone unaddressed or even excused.

The critics of Harvard policy point out that refusing to engage with federal accountability may sound principled, but when that defiance coincides with a pattern of selectively ignoring hate speech—particularly when it targets Jewish communities—it begins to look less like a defense of values and more like ideological posturing.
Free speech should not be weaponized to protect bigotry. If Harvard truly stands for inclusion, it should be willing to face difficult scrutiny—not just from political leaders, but from the communities it claims to serve.

Many supporters of the scrutiny of the institutions like Harvard, Columbia and others say:
Standing up for institutional independence is important—but not when it becomes a smokescreen for tolerating open antisemitism.
Harvard’s refusal to engage with the federal government might sound noble on the surface, but it rings hollow when the university has repeatedly failed to protect its Jewish students from harassment, intimidation, and blatant double standards.

Just this past year, we saw student groups glorifying terrorism, professors justifying October 7th, and Jewish students afraid to walk openly on campus—all while Harvard leadership offered vague statements and delayed responses. That’s not principled neutrality—that's selective tolerance.

If Harvard truly believed in moral leadership, it would confront all forms of hate—not just the ones that fit its ideological leanings. Independence isn’t about rejecting accountability. And in this case, Harvard owes more than an apology—it owes its students safety, integrity, and equal protection."

 

A truly egregious climate was created for Jewish students and even faculty. It was so bad to have Presidents of these elite schools attempt (with poor logic) and cowardice to justify before Congress the anti-semitism and climate.

It was a moment in our history that shows why genocides are able to happen.

 

Absolutely incredible to see people defending the destruction of constitutional rights.

 

Harvard has the largest academic endowment in the world, valued at over $52 billion. Why should the federal government (and therefore taxpayers) give them any money at all? Harvard can spend their own money,

Some would disagree-
Defending the Constitution doesn’t mean turning a blind eye when a university fails to protect its students from targeted hate.
No one’s advocating for destroying rights—people are asking for consistency and accountability.

If Harvard were truly defending all students’ rights equally, people wouldn’t be seeing lawsuits from Jewish students who feel threatened and abandoned, nor federal judges agreeing that their complaints deserve to go to trial, saying constitutional rights include equal protection under the law—not selective outrage depending on who’s being targeted.

Calling for transparency and consequences when a university tolerates harassment isn’t “destroying rights.” It’s upholding them—for everyone.

Curious—do you believe constitutional rights also protect students from being harassed or silenced based on their religion or ethnicity? And if so, where should the line be when/if a university repeatedly fails to uphold that?

 

I appreciate that we agree Jewish students have faced unacceptable harassment.
I'm sure the issue is more complex, but it doesn’t erase the fact that Harvard is currently being sued by Jewish students, with a federal judge finding those claims credible enough to move forward. That’s not partisan noise to them—that’s a civil rights concern.
I think they want to hold the powerful institution accountable when it fails their own students.
If the administration’s pressure is politically motivated, that’s fair to debate.
But I think it’s no longer about who’s in the White House. It’s about whether such elite institutions are willing to stronger confront hate within their own walls—or what appeared to hide behind the shield of academic autonomy, and academic autonomy is a pillar that needs to be respected and protected, no doubt about it.

 

Let's just make it clear: in context, "people" here stand for "Musk/Trump administration". And saying that these "people" stand for "consistency and accountability" is willfully stupid to an astounding degree.

Also, keep up good work of implicating the Jews in the MAGA war on higher education (all kind of education, really). Somewhere there are lifelong antisemitic white nationalists laughing hysterically at you doing their work for them.

 

Stanislav, People in content of my post means the Jewish families, students who are suing Harvard.

 

Then the first part of this sentence, "No one’s advocating for destroying rights" - is a lie. Willful one. And you just used the Jewish families as a fig leaf to cover a lie. Bang-up job, that.

 

I want to clarify my previous comment. When I referred to "people" in the context of my post, I meant the Jewish families and students who are suing Harvard. These are the individuals directly involved in the lawsuit against the university over its handling of antisemitism on campus.
I understand your perspective, but I respectfully disagree with your reasoning. From the Jewish students’ point of view, their lawsuit is fundamentally a civil rights issue.
They believe Harvard has failed to protect them from harassment and discrimination, so they are using legal means to demand equal treatment and a safe learning environment. In their eyes, this is about enforcing anti-discrimination policies and ensuring the university upholds the rights of Jewish students—nothing more, nothing less.
However, I also see a broader context beyond the campus. In my view, these events are connected to a larger, worldwide struggle. Specifically, I perceive a global jihadist movement orchestrated by radical extremists who seek to establish an Islamic State (Caliphate) in places like Lebanon and Israel. For these radical jihadist groups, accepting the existence of Israel as a Jewish state or Lebanon as a Christian-led state is ideologically unacceptable. In their minds, acknowledging such states represents a defeat of their vision for an Islamic Caliphate. This means that whenever Israel is recognized as a Jewish state (or Lebanon maintains its Christian identity), it clashes with the jihadists’ fundamentalist goals.
It’s important to distinguish between these two situations. On one hand, we have Jewish students and families engaging in peaceful civil rights activism through a lawsuit, aiming to curb antisemitism and protect their rights at Harvard. On the other hand, we have violent extremist movements with a geopolitical agenda that spans nations and conflicts far beyond the university setting. The former is about protecting individuals from discrimination in an educational institution, while the latter is about a militant ideology trying to reshape national identities and borders.
In summary, I’m making a nuanced argument. The Jewish students’ fight at Harvard is a civil rights issue, and it should be addressed as such. At the same time, I believe that the surge in antisemitism we’re seeing—whether on campus or internationally—can’t be fully separated from the influence of extremist ideologies. We must recognize the difference between legitimate civil rights activism and the violent objectives of radical jihadist movements. Acknowledging this distinction allows us to support the Jewish students’ cause for justice on campus while also remaining vigilant about the broader extremist threats that reject the very existence of places like Israel or religious diversity in regions like the Middle East. I offer this viewpoint with respect and hope it clarifies where I’m coming from.
And yes, first they come for the Jews.

 

Harvard has the largest academic endowment in the world, valued at over $52 billion. Why should the federal government (and therefore taxpayers) give them any money at all? Harvard can spend their own money,
Promote research at state universities and give the money to them instead.

 

I wouldn't worry about explaining too much. There are a couple of posters here who are kings of strawman argumentation. So out of whatever you post they will draw a conclusion (falsified) about what you support and then knock it down (and not talking about the Moderator Steve....whom I may disagree with but don't find him unfair). The other two are ideologically driven to the point of creating silly assertions and disparaging the humanity and decency of others. It is so unsophisticated that it is more laughable than substantive.

 

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. The federal money is primarily for research grants. The college/university makes proposals like "we could research this or that" and the federal government funds the grants that the federal government is interested in.

The academic endowment is money donated to the college/university (mostly by previous graduates) primarily for things like building or renovating not for research grants.

 

I’m well aware that federal funding often comes through competitive research grants, and I never claimed otherwise.
But pointing that out doesn’t negate the broader issue: As of the end of fiscal year 2024, Harvard University's endowment was valued at $53.2 billion, making it the largest academic endowment in the world. That raises a legitimate question about priorities.

Should taxpayers be funding research at institutions with such vast private wealth, or should more of that funding go toward public universities that are underfunded and serve broader populations?

It’s not about misunderstanding how grants work — it’s about asking whether the current model is fair or balanced.
Harvard can afford to do more with its own money. That’s a valid discussion to have.

 

I have a direct question for you. Do you really think that whatever concerns Jewish students have with antisemitism is a cause - not a pretext - of Trump administration's demands on universities, specifically Harvard? Are you willing to defend this position? That would strike me as incredibly naive.

 

Maybe start with telling us what does the federal government trying to achieve by funding biomedical research through grants.
Also, are you suggesting that Muskitoes are seeking to redistribute the research funding towards public universities? Because, well, that'd be yet another case of absolutely stunning naivete. And I am kind of curious why don't you grant this amount of the benefit of the doubt to the people on the left of the political scale. For example, BLM activists. Or, from a while back, women concerned with their sexual safety? Or - and please stay with me here - perhaps the people who question Israel are really motivated by their concern for civilian population of Gaza? Somehow I suspect you'd be way, way, waywayway more skeptical about this last suggestion.
Despite what Garp seems to suggest, it is usually no mystery which political team people are rooting for. It kind of helps to be familiar with the не всё так однозначно Putin apologism trope.

 

Ooof course you did. You just brought these fine people into a conversation about, and I quote, "Harvard University rejects Trump admin's demands, risking billions in funding". By doing so, you implied - but didn't actually state - that Trump admin demands were in support of the concerns of these people, and thus justified. That is a non sequitur. In terms you like, one may say that it's akin of using these Jewish families as a human shield for questionable actions. You seemed to not like such actions.