Harvard is losing federal funding. It’s about time. There was a funny story about Harvard long ago. In preparation for the school’s 350th birthday in 1986, the university raised $350 million. Back in the day, that was actually a lot of money; today it is less than the contracts of top baseball players. The university has since raised over $1 billion at a time, but that was unimaginable in 1986. School president Derek Bok and dean Henry Rosovsky took a heavy hitter out for dinner. Bok made the pitch: “We’re short a million to finish off the fundraising. You’re going to give us that million.” The donor looked at the Jewish dean and told him to write the word, “chutzpah” on a napkin. Bok grabbed the pen and wrote CHUTZPAH and the deal was done: Harvard had finished its $350 million raise.
I am receiving so many emails from current Harvard honcho, Dr. Alan Gerber, that I might have to add him to my contact list. The president sent out a letter to explain why Harvard would not give in to the Trump administration’s demands to address antisemitism on campus. The president’s gist is that the demands are not about antisemitism but rather on how to control a private university. The school will resist the government’s demands, and the US has announced $2.2 billion in withheld funding as a response to Harvard’s intransigence.
The question at the heart of the matter is simple: are the government’s demands fair or too invasive? In his missive, Garber conveniently gives a link to the government’s letter. I will try to summarize the main points below:
– The first two paragraphs give the basis for the government’s approach. Never before have universities been asked to uphold their end of the federal financing bargain.
“The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture. Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government."
Recommended
– Governance and Leadership Reform. The US is demanding that Harvard “[foster] clear lines of authority and accountability; [empower] tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; [reduce] the power held by students and untenured faculty; [reduce] the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship...”
– Merit-Based Hiring Reform. “By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership…”
– Merit-Based Admissions Reform: “By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs….”
– International Admissions Reform: “By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students 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: “By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, 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…”
– Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. “By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture…”
– Discontinuation of DEI: “The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government…”
– Student Discipline Reform and Accountability: “Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology…”
And so on.
On the one hand, President Garber is correct: the United States government is making demands for fundamental changes that would impact the way Harvard would run its business. He claims that the demands go far beyond concerns for antisemitism and are inappropriate, even when Harvard receives $9 billion from the feds for research. As a Jewish alumnus, I look at the list and can only say that it is long overdue. The feds are demanding that Harvard clean up its act in admissions, hiring, discipline, and governance. Harvard’s DEI program and ideological tilt are out of control and are damaging the university’s reputation and its ability to perform at an international level. Bringing in antisemites to make Qatar give more money is ruining the campus. It would appear that the government would not go beyond defunding Harvard should it choose to continue in its current trajectory; there is no suggestion of civil or criminal sanctions should Harvard continue to skew its admission or refuse to take down its shrine to DEI. Harvard just secured a $750 million loan from Wall Street, apparently anticipating reduced funding in light of its response. The feds do not owe Harvard a dime, and if Harvard chooses to eschew US money—like Hillsdale College--it can continue along its path of being a left-wing lunatic asylum.
Harvard does not want to change; it likes skewing hiring, admissions, and acceptable opinions on campus as per the monolithic ideological ethos on campus. Let DOGE save the $9 billion and wait for Harvard to burn through its $53 billion endowment or come begging to get its funding back. Harvard should recall that Germany was also at the pinnacle of science and philosophy when it began its program against the Jews. President Garber should remember how well that played out for the Third Reich.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member