A couple of months into President Trump’s second term, his administration obliged Harvard University, one of the oldest institutions in the U.S., to change its policies in return for federal funding.
These demands (including: getting rid of diversity programs, revisions on admission processes, and defunding any groups on campus that promote “criminal activity and antisemitism”) followed the ongoing Pro-Palestine protests beginning in the Fall of 2023 on the Harvard campus.
Although there are some instances of antisemitic rhetoric and actions stated at these protests, “The narrative that the Gaza solidarity encampments are inherently antisemitic is part of a decades-long effort to blur the lines between criticism of Israel and antisemitism,” the letter signed by 750 Jewish students read.”
The Trump administration says that these demands are a direct effort to prevent antisemitism on campus.
The administration’s demands have led to a lawsuit with 2.2 billion dollars of research funds on the line. The money Harvard usually receives, now frozen, funds medical, scientific, environmental, and many other research studies. This freeze has affected the university in many ways, from having to allocate “central” funds from the school’s central budget, pausing many study projects.
Antisemitism is a form of prejudice in which hatred is expressed toward Jewish people. In response to President Trump’s accusations of discrimination, Alan Garber, Harvard President, later responded to the implications of the accusation by expressing that, “We will continue to fight hate with the urgency it demands as we fully comply with our obligations under the law. That is not only our legal responsibility. It is our moral imperative.” This statement confirmed Harvard’s commitment to not defending antisemitism or any illegal actions.
On Apr. 21, Harvard filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration, including the Department of Education and the National Institutes of Health’s “unlawful and unconstitutional” actions.
Garber writes, “No government, regardless of which party is in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
This relates to the government’s funding freeze by limiting the resources Harvard has and is able to educate their students with.
Since Harvard is a private institution and, by law is entitled to academic freedom and institutional autonomy, this case has a lot to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people.”
The First Amendment is the highest law referring to freedom of speech. This important law has been a key stone to America’s government, allowing citizens’ freedoms.
On the basis of the First Amendment, AP Government and Politics teacher Dr. Rudman said that, “The first amendment is not absolute, if speech has harmful effects, the government may take action to restrict that expression in order to preserve safety.”
Although Harvard is arguing that the Trump administration infringed on their First Amendment rights to both liberty of speech and intellectual freedom, if the court believes they are having “harmful effects” on their students, the decision could side with the Trump administration.
This case between Harvard and the current federal government highlights not only questions about the power our government holds, but also academic freedom and its recent tension with political polarization.
