Harvard Takes on the Federal Government
Harvard is a private research university that receives federal funding for research in areas such as oncology, immunology, neuroscience, and molecular biology. Following nationwide controversy over antisemitism on university campuses, the federal government issued a letter to Harvard outlining new requirements the university would need to meet to maintain eligibility for these federal grants. Some of the requirements include:
- Hiring and admitting a “critical mass” of faculty and students to achieve “viewpoint diversity” in each department;
- Eliminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives;
- Reforming its recruitment and admission of international students “to prevent admitting students hostile to []American values”;
- Terminating funding for student groups the government views as promoting antisemitic speech; and
- Reforming its governance structure to reduce the influence of students and faculty “committed to activism over scholarship.”
Harvard’s president responded with a letter stating that “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.”
Consequently, the government froze over $2.2 billion in grants and contracts and Harvard received stop work orders. Funding was halted for research on cancer treatment, infectious diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, and other important areas.
Harvard claims that the freeze violates the university’s First Amendment rights. The government argues that it was within its rights to condition funding on compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
Additional Reading Materials
Steve Inskeep, Obed Manuel, and Reena Advani | Morning Edition | 05/28/18 (Podcast)
“As Trump targets elite schools, Harvard’s president says they should ‘stand firm’”
Makiya Seminera | AP | 04/15/25 (Article)
“A look at the universities with federal funding targeted by the Trump administration”
Josh Gruenbaum, Sean R. Keveney, and Thomas E. Wheeler | Harvard University | 04/11/25 (Article)
“Letter from federal agency HHS to Harvard listing its demands”
Betsy Klein | CNN | 07/21/25 (Article)
Anna Betts | The Guardian | 05/23/25 (Article)
“Harvard v Trump: takeaways from university’s legal battle over international student ban”
Discussion Topics
- Which of the federal requirements do you think represent the strongest case for an infringement of the First Amendment and which are the greatest threat to academic freedom?
- Defend the proposition that the federal response is appropriate in order to enforce the anti-discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act. You may want to consider the 1983 Supreme Court decision in Bob Jones University v. United States, where the Court upheld the IRS’s authority to revoke the University’s tax-exempt status due to its official practice of denying “admission to applicants engaged in interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating.” Is this case similar or different?
- Defend the proposition that the federal response is appropriate and consistent with free speech and academic freedom.
- Discuss the proposition that the real problem illustrated by this case is that private universities have become too dependent on federal funds and that that dependence itself is a threat to the values of free speech and academic freedom and should be phased out.