How Harvard Ended Up Leading the University Fight Against Trump
https://www.wsj.com/
Harvard第一个控告川普政府
版主： kazaawang， wh
#6 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
看了新闻，川普的手下太不会谈判了，似乎对高校完全没有了解，私立高校怎么会让政府监督招生、课程设置和意识形态教育，那不和中国差不多了，再设个党委书记……ReedToBe 写了： 2025年 4月 16日 01:20 How Harvard Ended Up Leading the University Fight Against Trump
https://www.wsj.com/
抄一下新闻：
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/h ... p-2a931dd1
How Harvard Ended Up Leading the University Fight Against Trump
Some in Washington say America’s wealthiest school is about to learn the price of crossing the president
By Douglas Belkin, Meridith McGraw, Erin Mulvaney and Sara Randazzo
April 15, 2025 9:02 pm ET
Harvard University has drawn a line in the sand against the Trump administration and its sweeping demands for cultural change. Now it is counting on its peer institutions for backup.
In Washington, Republicans say the nation’s wealthiest and oldest university has just made a serious error in judgment and is about to learn the cost of crossing Trump.
The collision between the president and America’s most iconic university had barely begun when it immediately escalated. Trump on Tuesday threatened to withdraw the university’s tax-exempt status, a move that would hit Harvard’s finances far beyond the $2.26 billion in federal cuts the Trump administration had announced Monday night after Harvard’s president said the school wouldn’t bow to a broad list of demands.
Trump’s allies are also vowing to hold the line against the Ivy League university, which has an endowment of more than $50 billion. “I think Harvard got bad advice to take a different approach,” said U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), herself a Harvard graduate, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “But what they don’t realize is the level of seriousness—it is dead serious.”
Now that Harvard has stuck its neck out, it is waiting for support. The institution is working with Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to Trump that the university hired earlier this year. It is also leaning on its own team in Washington to reach out to potentially sympathetic Republicans in the administration or in Congress who might be willing to help, according to people familiar with the matter.
The pitch to Republicans, according to a person familiar with the matter: Don’t overreach, this is a private institution.
Harvard’s defiance seems to have emboldened Columbia University, which has been in protracted negotiations with the Trump administration to restore $400 million in funding cuts over antisemitism allegations.
Following Harvard’s public stance, Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, told the university community that it will not let Washington call the shots on who Columbia hires or what it teaches.
Harvard President Alan Garber
The university might have to make a difficult decision to secure its future, Shipman wrote, “But we would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution.”
The day the Harvard news broke, MIT, Princeton and other universities sued the Energy Department to block cuts to federal research grants the agency said would save $405 million annually. And on Tuesday, Stanford University President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez expressed support for Harvard and vowed to resist Trump.
“Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending,” they said.
The expressions of allegiance have been building for weeks as Trump has scrutinized universities.
“Higher education has been waiting for an institution to take on the Trump administration,” said Teresa Valerio Parrot, a principal at higher-education firm TVP Communications. “It was going to have to be a well-resourced institution with a strong brand.”
Friday-night breakdown
Negotiations between Harvard and the Trump administration began in late March with cautious optimism and a sizable amount of common ground.
Harvard had already spent months making good-faith efforts to quell campus antisemitism and implement structural changes to stop it from rising again. The tactics broadly met the requests that arrived in a letter from a new Trump bureaucratic panel called the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Both sides wanted to see a mask ban and a winding down of diversity, equity and inclusion in admissions and faculty hiring.
The task force believed Harvard would concede, just as Columbia had, according to someone familiar with the negotiations. And indeed, Harvard’s initial complaints to the task force were that the demands were too vague. Could it have more details?
Late this past Friday, Harvard finally got the real ask—and was shocked by the demands detailed in a five-page letter, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. The list included requirements that Harvard allow federal-government oversight of admissions, hiring and the ideology of students and staff.
The university saw the demands as much stronger than what had been asked of its peers. Harvard leaders felt they had no choice but to respond, the person said, as many of the demands were completely unacceptable to them.
There was a board meeting on Sunday, the person said, at which the board and its lawyers, scattered around the country, were patched in to discuss the letter. There was no dissension, and full-throated agreement on what they needed to do. The lawyers drafted the letter.
“The demands crossed a series of red lines,” said a different person familiar with the negotiations.
Stefanik said the demands were reasonable for a university that she portrayed as doing too little to protect Jewish students. “They’re pretty common sense terms,” she said. “It was very straightforward.”
On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the administration’s proposal and struck a defiant tone. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism,” he wrote, “the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
Within hours, the federal task force to combat antisemitism canceled more than $2 billion in research grants. On Tuesday, Trump made a social-media post threatening Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
By rejecting the administration’s demands, America’s wealthiest university also became the first to fully confront the White House. The decision wasn’t made lightly and came only after scores of alumni and national figures associated with Harvard urged the institution to defend itself and higher education more broadly.
Former Harvard President Larry Summers posed the question: If not Harvard, then which institution? Harvard Law School graduate and former President Barack Obama expressed his concerns during public remarks at Hamilton College.
The demands
Among the demands made in the Friday letter: Harvard would have to hire a third party, approved by the federal government, to audit the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for “viewpoint diversity” and to submit those reports to the federal government by the end of 2025.
Harvard would be required to share all its hiring and admissions data with the federal government—with the information subjected to government audits—until at least the end of 2028. The admissions data would need to include information about rejected and admitted students, broken down by race, color, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests.
All existing and prospective faculty would need to be reviewed for plagiarism.
Harvard would have to hire an external auditor to examine the programs and departments the task force said “most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture,” including Harvard’s divinity school, graduate school of education, school of public health and medical school. Harvard would have to reform recruitment, screening and admissions to weed out international students “hostile to the American values and institutions.”
The demands were designed to blow up negotiations, not move the two parties closer to a deal, said Jeffrey Flier, a former dean of the Harvard Medical School and member of the Council on Academic Freedom, which has been working toward expanding viewpoint diversity on campus.
“You can’t suddenly turn a switch and things change overnight,” he said. Many in the Trump administration “have said that they don’t think the institutions can be reformed from within, and they need to be burned down and rebuilt from the edges.”
#9 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
哈佛校长的公开信：
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/ ... education/
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. 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.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
·nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
·affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
·work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
© 2025 The President and Fellows of Harvard College | Harvard.edu
Harvard University | Cambridge, MA 02138
Published on April 14, 2025
https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/ ... education/
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. 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.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
·nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
·affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
·work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
© 2025 The President and Fellows of Harvard College | Harvard.edu
Harvard University | Cambridge, MA 02138
Published on April 14, 2025
上次由 wh 在 2025年 4月 16日 04:29 修改。
原因： 未提供修改原因
原因： 未提供修改原因
#11 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
DEI肯定应该反对，但是其他的要求就未必合适，混在一起不合适。川普政府其他的要求有一些手伸得过长了，还拿税豁免，削减经费威胁，越界了。Harvard打包起诉也不应该。wh 写了： 2025年 4月 16日 04:19 看了新闻，川普的手下太不会谈判了，似乎对高校完全没有了解，私立高校怎么会让政府监督招生、课程设置和意识形态教育，那不和中国差不多了，再设个党委书记……
抄一下新闻：
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/h ... p-2a931dd1
How Harvard Ended Up Leading the University Fight Against Trump
Some in Washington say America’s wealthiest school is about to learn the price of crossing the president
By Douglas Belkin, Meridith McGraw, Erin Mulvaney and Sara Randazzo
April 15, 2025 9:02 pm ET
Harvard University has drawn a line in the sand against the Trump administration and its sweeping demands for cultural change. Now it is counting on its peer institutions for backup.
In Washington, Republicans say the nation’s wealthiest and oldest university has just made a serious error in judgment and is about to learn the cost of crossing Trump.
The collision between the president and America’s most iconic university had barely begun when it immediately escalated. Trump on Tuesday threatened to withdraw the university’s tax-exempt status, a move that would hit Harvard’s finances far beyond the $2.26 billion in federal cuts the Trump administration had announced Monday night after Harvard’s president said the school wouldn’t bow to a broad list of demands.
Trump’s allies are also vowing to hold the line against the Ivy League university, which has an endowment of more than $50 billion. “I think Harvard got bad advice to take a different approach,” said U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), herself a Harvard graduate, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. “But what they don’t realize is the level of seriousness—it is dead serious.”
Now that Harvard has stuck its neck out, it is waiting for support. The institution is working with Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with close ties to Trump that the university hired earlier this year. It is also leaning on its own team in Washington to reach out to potentially sympathetic Republicans in the administration or in Congress who might be willing to help, according to people familiar with the matter.
The pitch to Republicans, according to a person familiar with the matter: Don’t overreach, this is a private institution.
Harvard’s defiance seems to have emboldened Columbia University, which has been in protracted negotiations with the Trump administration to restore $400 million in funding cuts over antisemitism allegations.
Following Harvard’s public stance, Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, told the university community that it will not let Washington call the shots on who Columbia hires or what it teaches.
Harvard President Alan Garber
The university might have to make a difficult decision to secure its future, Shipman wrote, “But we would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution.”
The day the Harvard news broke, MIT, Princeton and other universities sued the Energy Department to block cuts to federal research grants the agency said would save $405 million annually. And on Tuesday, Stanford University President Jonathan Levin and Provost Jenny Martinez expressed support for Harvard and vowed to resist Trump.
“Harvard’s objections to the letter it received are rooted in the American tradition of liberty, a tradition essential to our country’s universities, and worth defending,” they said.
The expressions of allegiance have been building for weeks as Trump has scrutinized universities.
“Higher education has been waiting for an institution to take on the Trump administration,” said Teresa Valerio Parrot, a principal at higher-education firm TVP Communications. “It was going to have to be a well-resourced institution with a strong brand.”
Friday-night breakdown
Negotiations between Harvard and the Trump administration began in late March with cautious optimism and a sizable amount of common ground.
Harvard had already spent months making good-faith efforts to quell campus antisemitism and implement structural changes to stop it from rising again. The tactics broadly met the requests that arrived in a letter from a new Trump bureaucratic panel called the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. Both sides wanted to see a mask ban and a winding down of diversity, equity and inclusion in admissions and faculty hiring.
The task force believed Harvard would concede, just as Columbia had, according to someone familiar with the negotiations. And indeed, Harvard’s initial complaints to the task force were that the demands were too vague. Could it have more details?
Late this past Friday, Harvard finally got the real ask—and was shocked by the demands detailed in a five-page letter, according to a person familiar with the negotiations. The list included requirements that Harvard allow federal-government oversight of admissions, hiring and the ideology of students and staff.
The university saw the demands as much stronger than what had been asked of its peers. Harvard leaders felt they had no choice but to respond, the person said, as many of the demands were completely unacceptable to them.
There was a board meeting on Sunday, the person said, at which the board and its lawyers, scattered around the country, were patched in to discuss the letter. There was no dissension, and full-throated agreement on what they needed to do. The lawyers drafted the letter.
“The demands crossed a series of red lines,” said a different person familiar with the negotiations.
Stefanik said the demands were reasonable for a university that she portrayed as doing too little to protect Jewish students. “They’re pretty common sense terms,” she said. “It was very straightforward.”
On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the administration’s proposal and struck a defiant tone. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism,” he wrote, “the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
Within hours, the federal task force to combat antisemitism canceled more than $2 billion in research grants. On Tuesday, Trump made a social-media post threatening Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
By rejecting the administration’s demands, America’s wealthiest university also became the first to fully confront the White House. The decision wasn’t made lightly and came only after scores of alumni and national figures associated with Harvard urged the institution to defend itself and higher education more broadly.
Former Harvard President Larry Summers posed the question: If not Harvard, then which institution? Harvard Law School graduate and former President Barack Obama expressed his concerns during public remarks at Hamilton College.
The demands
Among the demands made in the Friday letter: Harvard would have to hire a third party, approved by the federal government, to audit the student body, faculty, staff and leadership for “viewpoint diversity” and to submit those reports to the federal government by the end of 2025.
Harvard would be required to share all its hiring and admissions data with the federal government—with the information subjected to government audits—until at least the end of 2028. The admissions data would need to include information about rejected and admitted students, broken down by race, color, national origin, grade-point average and performance on standardized tests.
All existing and prospective faculty would need to be reviewed for plagiarism.
Harvard would have to hire an external auditor to examine the programs and departments the task force said “most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture,” including Harvard’s divinity school, graduate school of education, school of public health and medical school. Harvard would have to reform recruitment, screening and admissions to weed out international students “hostile to the American values and institutions.”
The demands were designed to blow up negotiations, not move the two parties closer to a deal, said Jeffrey Flier, a former dean of the Harvard Medical School and member of the Council on Academic Freedom, which has been working toward expanding viewpoint diversity on campus.
“You can’t suddenly turn a switch and things change overnight,” he said. Many in the Trump administration “have said that they don’t think the institutions can be reformed from within, and they need to be burned down and rebuilt from the edges.”
华人甚至亚洲人应该坚决支持两家拆开打官司，把DEI单独拆出来。对华裔尤其华裔男生的歧视太重了。
-
datoumao（大头猫）
- 论坛元老
2023-24年度十大优秀网友
datoumao 的博客 - 帖子互动： 2617
- 帖子： 15325
- 注册时间： 2022年 10月 22日 01:42
#14 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
对于国际学生，executive branch有着100%的决定权。哈佛你可以随便录取恐怖分子或者哈马斯同情者，但是国务院不给签证也是100%符合宪法。
#15 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
Executive branch不能管理或者监督USA citizens的非仇恨暴力言论，但是对于国际学生的意识形态和言论而言，全部属于executive branch管辖。这就是为什么你来美国申请签证时，如果填写了你是共产党员的话，executive branch可以直接禁止你入境，谁告都没用。
#17 Re: Harvard第一个控告川普政府
The leader leads by leadingReedToBe 写了： 2025年 4月 16日 01:20 How Harvard Ended Up Leading the University Fight Against Trump
https://www.wsj.com/
