UJ
—
Harvard University serves as a striking counterpoint to Trumpism, raising questions about how it managed to escape the MAGA storm for such a long time.
However, the nation’s oldest higher education institution is now facing off against a White House that seemingly has few restrictions on its authority and aims to dismantle significant societal structures.
Harvard’s President Alan Garber chose to resist the administration’s demands to alter its policies, asserting that the university would not “compromise its autonomy or its constitutional freedoms.” An institution that typically has produced presidents rather than opposing them has ignited one of the most critical confrontations to date between President Donald Trump and an established institution.
Individuals lacking an Ivy League background often ridicule the elitism of the nation’s most prestigious universities, whose degrees grant access to exclusive circles unavailable to most Americans.
When Trump characterizes the renowned scholars of Cambridge, Massachusetts, as leftist radicals advocating “woke” policies on race and gender, he does so amidst a broader milieu. Millions share his sentiments, with polling indicating increasing skepticism toward institutions of higher education, particularly among Republicans.
Yet, Trump’s critique of elite colleges transcends merely energizing his political base.
The administration’s pressure on prestigious universities is part of a larger strategy to contest what it perceives as centers of liberal authority, which also encompass the judiciary, the federal government, and the press. Following the transformation of the Republican Party and the Supreme Court, Trump aims to extend his populist agenda to higher education, targeting beliefs that diverge from his MAGA philosophy and aiming to shift the nation sharply to the right.
Trump’s confrontational stance extends beyond mere academics and their predominantly left-leaning faculties. His immigration policies have fostered a climate of fear on campuses: individuals have been seized by border agents, and numerous students have had their visas revoked on the basis that their opinions threaten U.S. foreign policy interests.
Such an environment of repression jeopardizes the open discourse vital to a flourishing university experience. Additionally, Trump’s threats to withdraw funding from leading institutions put at risk the nation’s position as a leader in scientific and medical research for critical illnesses like cancer and Alzheimer’s.
White House’s demands extend well beyond antisemitism accusations
Academics frequently face accusations of residing in an insulated bubble.
This was underscored in December 2023 when New York Rep. Elise Stefanik criticized top university presidents over campus protests that critics alleged devolved into antisemitism following the Hamas attacks on Israel. The academics’ carefully measured responses may have been appropriate in an academic setting but turned into a political disaster.
The moral indignation of Stefanik, a Harvard alumna, contributed to the resignation of the university’s president, Claudine Gay. The New York legislator’s performances also positioned her as a rapidly ascending figure within the MAGA movement and House GOP leadership.
Stefanik once again spearheaded the attack against Harvard on Tuesday after the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding when the university refused to acquiesce to its demands. “If you examine the tenured faculty in these institutions, they are completely disconnected from American values. Ninety-seven percent align with the Democrat or progressive label. They are promoting radical, far-left ideologies and effectively teaching anti-American sentiment,” Stefanik remarked on Fox News.
The administration has utilized the allegations of antisemitism to bolster its wider critique of universities and its extensive deportation campaign.
It insisted that Harvard arrange for an independent entity to evaluate various programs, schools, and departments within the university that it claimed exhibited severe instances of antisemitism or bias.
However, the extensive list of demands does not conclude there. It called for the cessation of all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, a reduction of faculty influence, and an end to hiring practices based on race, religion, or gender. It also sought stricter regulations on student protests and organizations, including those that advocate for Palestinian rights—a long-standing, if previously overlooked, U.S. government policy. Moreover, the White House demanded inquiries into past campus demonstrations and sit-ins that occurred in response to the Hamas attacks.
This ambitious wishlist represents an unprecedented attempt by a presidential administration to establish control over an independent academic institution. The standoff, which comes after other universities—Columbia included—have agreed to similar pressures, is likely to lead to legal challenges.
Yet, Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury Secretary and Harvard president, informed UJ that the university should resist a government that is acting in an “excessively unlawful” manner. He remarked, “Universities do require significant reform, which has been slow. However, that does not justify the government outright disregarding the law to impose self-serving political demands on universities.”
Trump may believe he has a political advantage, regardless of the outcome.
When universities capitulate, fearful of losing substantial public funding, his influence is amplified; then he can escalate his demands. Conversely, when they put up a defense, they engage him in a battle he welcomes. And when Democrats challenge him, they align with what many Americans perceive as elitist establishment figures, who are often unpopular.
The MAGA movement exhibits deep-seated contempt for elite universities—most notably among Ivy League alumni like Stefanik and Vice President JD Vance, who frequently appear to be striving to reconcile their own prestigious educations with the sentiments of the base.
This populist backlash against established institutions lies at the core of the MAGA movement and “America first” conservativism, along with the conviction that liberal faculties are responsible for disseminating an anti-American belief system.
For example, during a National Conservatism Conference in 2021, Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, called for a campaign against “very hostile institutions” and asserted, “If any of us aspire to accomplish our goals for our country and the citizens within it – we must vigorously challenge the universities in this nation.”
On the campaign trail last year, Trump criticized universities he accused of harboring “Marxist maniacs.” The president’s movement has long cultivated skepticism toward academic intellectualism and a distrust of the highly educated, sentiments which were further intensified by his critiques of experts during the Covid-19 crisis in his first term, and now reflect in his unconventional Cabinet choices for a second term.
This highly politicized stance leaves little doubt that the administration’s motives extend well beyond merely addressing antisemitism in higher education.
“This is a blatant attempt to alter the curriculum, the discourse in our classrooms, and the subjects taught to our students, ensuring that the only views expressed on university campuses align with the preferences of the Trump administration,” Andrew Manuel Crespo, a Harvard Law School professor, commented to UJ’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday.
The administration’s stringent immigration enforcement has also fostered a stifling atmosphere on campuses after detaining several students involved in protests against Israel, as well as some who were not.
Just last week, the Trump administration secured a deportation order from a Louisiana immigration judge regarding Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident. He faced accusations of undermining U.S. efforts to combat antisemitism without any claims of criminal wrongdoing. Khalil, married to a U.S. citizen, is a noted Palestinian activist who played a significant role in campus protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza last year.
In another instance, Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk was apprehended last month by masked agents near Somerville, Massachusetts. She stated before a federal judge on Monday that she was illegally arrested and subjected to “unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane” conditions in a Louisiana immigration facility. The government has accused her of engaging in activities “supporting Hamas,” yet the Washington Post reported that a State Department division failed to uncover any evidence linking her to antisemitism or terrorism.
This week, a Palestinian student at Columbia University entered a Vermont immigration office for his citizenship interview but was detained in handcuffs. Mohsen Mahdawi, who has lived in the United States for a decade, was reportedly taken into custody “as direct reprisal for his advocacy concerning Palestinians and due to his Palestinian identity,” according to his attorney.
Ranjani Srinivasan, another student from Columbia University, sought refuge in Canada after receiving an email regarding the cancellation of her student visa and after federal agents appeared at her residence. She told UJ’s Shimon Prokupecz that she had merely been caught in a police blockade while attempting to return home from an anti-Israel protest.
Legal experts and civil rights advocates caution that these incidents, among numerous others, reflect an administration that disregards the rule of law and the concept of free speech.
Sarah Paoletti, a professor and director of the Transnational Legal Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School, warned of compromised “due process and other fundamental constitutional rights.”
Paoletti added, “This also results in a culture of silence and instills a profound sense of fear. There is an underlying intentionality behind this approach. Many in this administration have long advocated the idea of creating conditions so unfavorable that individuals will choose to self-deport, thus alleviating us of the burden and expense. These actions send a clear message: ‘If you do not choose to leave voluntarily, there will be consequences.’”
The administration’s focus on universities may hinder the freewheeling nature that characterizes American higher education, according to Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
“Individuals come from across the globe to study at American universities, partially due to the diverse experiences and perspectives that their peers contribute. This exchange of vastly different experiences, political opinions, and cultural backgrounds enhances the appeal of American universities,” Jaffer stated in an interview with UJ’s Audie Cornish that aired on her podcast “The Assignment.”
“However, if non-citizens are deterred from expressing their views or participating in public discussions, it doesn’t just affect them; it has ramifications for all of us.”
