In a bold stance against the Trump administration, Harvard University rejected sweeping demands aimed at cracking down on campus antisemitism, risking the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding.
The university’s leadership, under President Alan Garber, responded defiantly to the administration’s April 3 list of requirements, which included changes to Harvard’s governance, hiring practices, and admissions procedures. The demands also included the closure of diversity offices and mandatory cooperation with immigration authorities for the screening of international students.
Garber addressed the situation in a letter to the Harvard community, affirming the university’s position on academic independence. “We will not negotiate over our independence or our constitutional rights,” Garber stated. His remarks came amid growing concerns about the government’s attempts to influence the university’s internal policies.
The letter highlighted the tension between combating antisemitism and the government’s broader efforts to regulate the intellectual environment on college campuses. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating anti-Semitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard,” Garber explained.
The controversy comes in the wake of student protests across the country, particularly in response to Israel’s military actions in Gaza. These protests have led to violent clashes between demonstrators and pro-Israel counter-protesters. Some Republican figures, including Trump, have accused the activists of supporting Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S. government.
The U.S. Department of Education, in a March announcement, confirmed the opening of an investigation into 60 U.S. colleges and universities for alleged antisemitic harassment and discrimination. Harvard’s defiance followed a move by the government to review $9 billion in federal funding allocated to the university and its affiliates.
On Friday, the government sent Harvard a more detailed list of demands, which included an “audit” of the views of students and faculty. The university, however, expressed its refusal to comply with requests that exceeded the lawful scope of any administration, regardless of its political affiliation.
Garber argued that no government, irrespective of the party in power, should dictate what private universities can teach, who they can admit or hire, or which areas of study they can pursue.
Republican leaders, such as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, have criticised Harvard’s stance, calling for the university to be defunded. Stefanik, a prominent supporter of Israel, accused Harvard of tolerating “raging antisemitism” and labelled it “the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education.”
Harvard’s response marks a stark contrast to Columbia University’s approach. Columbia, also at the centre of last year’s pro-Palestinian protests, saw the Trump administration cut $400 million in federal grants. The university agreed to reform its disciplinary procedures and expand security, hiring 36 new officers. Additionally, immigration authorities have targeted Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the pro-Palestinian protests, with arrest and deportation proceedings.
As tensions continue to escalate between the government and universities, Harvard stands firm in its commitment to academic freedom, despite the looming threat of funding cuts.