Conservative voices, historically critical of higher education, are now split on how best to hold Harvard accountable for its actions.
The federal government has substantial influence, providing Harvard with over $500 million each year, and even more in future funding. However, the Trump administration must also navigate constitutional limits on its authority. Public sentiment indicates that a significant majority is against increasing federal oversight of educational institutions, which adds a layer of caution to the administration’s approach.
Ultimately, a mutually beneficial agreement would be ideal, one that limits federal intervention while ensuring Harvard adheres to civil rights laws, minimizes progressive indoctrination, and supports liberal education.
Harvard’s actions are what triggered this confrontation. The immediate catalyst for the Trump administration’s drastic response was Harvard’s failure to comply with civil rights laws, evidenced by its responses to antisemitism and race-based discrimination.
Harvard’s handling of antisemitism starkly contrasts with its proactive measures to protect other minority groups and women. The university has long restricted free speech on campus, particularly when it involves dissent from progressive ideologies. Yet, following the tragic events of October 7, 2023, where Hamas launched a violent attack in Israel, former Harvard President Claudine Gay noted that free speech seemed to allow calls for violent acts against Jews. Moreover, the university has acknowledged its slow responses to rising antisemitism since those events.
Additionally, Harvard has a history of racial discrimination. In the 2023 case *Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College*, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-based admissions practices breached the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Despite this ruling, the university continued its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs that allocated benefits based on race.
Beyond immediate concerns, a deeper issue exists regarding Harvard’s long-standing departure from true liberal education. Its curriculum is often criticized for focusing on professors’ niche interests rather than essential educational principles like the American ideals of liberty or foundational knowledge of various civilizations. Moreover, the university’s humanities and social sciences have strayed toward a progressive agenda that prioritizes social advocacy over teaching fundamental ethical, economic, and political knowledge.
This tolerance of antisemitism and use of race in policies justified the Trump administration’s aggressive stance to demand adherence to legal standards or risk losing federal support. Harvard’s ongoing neglect of liberal education intensified the urgency felt within the administration. However, the remedies proposed by the Trump administration appear dismissive of legal boundaries and fail to recognize the limitations of federal authority.
In the week prior to Harvard’s lawsuit, City Journal published insights from Manhattan Institute scholars Heather MacDonald and Christopher Rufo, both commenting on the administration’s approach to reforming Harvard. While they agreed on the necessity of reform, they diverged on the methods employed.
MacDonald, a strong critic of universities’ stances on free speech and diversity-related discrimination, expressed reservations about the Trump administration’s tactics, stating that its approach seems unclear in terms of legal justification for oversight over faculty hiring. Meanwhile, Rufo advocates for a more aggressive stance, arguing that leftist ideologies have co-opted civil rights legislation to propagate racial discrimination and that the right must now reclaim that legal framework for colorblind equality, emphasizing that discrimination is wrong regardless of whom it targets.
However, Rufo may underestimate the Trump administration’s tendency to employ constitutionally and legislatively questionable tools for this purpose.
On the other hand, Harvard contends that the Trump administration exceeded its authority legally. The university claims that freezing funding and demanding sweeping reforms unconstitutionally infringes on its rights to free speech. The administration, conversely, may argue that its actions provide Harvard with options—either comply with federal conditions or lose financial backing.
In terms of another allegation, Harvard is likely to succeed in arguing that the administration bypassed necessary congressional procedures for withholding funds. The facts suggest that the Trump administration took these actions without following the legally prescribed processes for halting or revoking funds.
A legal dispute is expected to be contentious for both sides.
Thus, an out-of-court resolution seems necessary. A fair settlement should ensure that Harvard adheres to civil rights law while allowing the Trump administration to respect the boundaries of its executive power. For the broader issues at play, it should help reduce indoctrination in favor of liberal education, while also safeguarding academic freedom.
Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Stanley Kurtz has proposed a pragmatic solution, suggesting a compromise surrounding Harvard’s handling of antisemitism and leftist tendencies. He expresses skepticism about the administration’s demands for control over Harvard but also highlights opportunities for both sides to find common ground, like the potential creation of a “School of General Education” tasked with a traditional curriculum focusing on essential texts and Western civilization.
This initiative would be difficult to dismantle and would benefit both parties; the administration could tout its success in promoting liberal education, while Harvard could maintain its autonomy. Students would gain a deeper understanding of their cultural heritage and learn to navigate diverse viewpoints with respect and curiosity. Ultimately, this could pave the way for a model of liberal education that elevates higher education nationwide.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
