In an Apr. 11 letter to Harvard’s President, Dr. Alan Gruber, and the lead member of the Harvard Corporation, Penny Pritzker, the federal government issued several demands to the university. The demands range from unreasonable to insane, but the message was clear: comply, or there will be consequences. Below are just some of the demands that the government made.
“Government and Leadership reform”
Though the titles given to these demands sound like they are trying to better the university, they mask the harmful nature of the request. A more suitable title would be “Suppress Those Who Resist.” An actual quote from the federal government says that Harvard should be “reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty” in favor of more senior professors/leaders. The government also says that the power of “administrators more committed to activism than scholarship” should also be reduced. Recently, we have been bombarded by news that should be setting off major alarm bells, and this is yet another case. The federal government is calling for the suppression of students and faculty who dare speak out against the Trump administration’s agenda. As clearly outlined in the First Amendment, freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Having the institutions that are supposed to uphold and protect these rights put them in jeopardy is not only disheartening, but it shows the true colors of those in power. To request that faculty focus more on scholarship than activism is absurd because part of scholarship is activism. Angela Davis, Martin Luther King Jr., and W.E.B. Du Bois (who obtained a Ph.D. from Harvard) were some of the most influential activists in U.S. history, and they were also scholars. Activism brings a new perspective to the classroom and fosters a sense of engagement in students, allowing them to voice their opinions on controversial matters. For the government to request that scholarship take place without activism is like asking an author to write a book without a pen, paper, computer, etc. The “reform” the government wants to see in universities is a suppression of free speech and the dismantling of a student body capable of critical thinking.
“Student Discipline Reform and Accountability”
Better titled “Student Policing and a Justification of Unwarranted Use of Force,” this demand asked that the Harvard Police immediately intervene in the event of a disruption. Beyond disruptions that “violate time, place, and manner rules…,” there is no guidance given as to when police force may be justified. In addition to this, the order called for the university to end support and recognition of “groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since Oct. 7, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduate Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild…” The attacks on students protesting the genocide in Gaza did not end there, with the order also saying that students who participated in protests in the 2023-24 and 2024-25 years must be thoroughly investigated and disciplined. This part of the order did not come as much of a surprise, given the pushback from the federal government to pro-Palestine protests. Looking back at last year, the police force was used on students around the country, even though the protests were largely peaceful. The overuse of the police force on college campuses threatens the very lifeblood of what the university experience is supposed to be.
When you apply for college, nearly every school boasts that it requires students to be “well-rounded,” taking classes in multiple content areas to produce critical thinkers. The result of this critical thinking is that students can decide when something doesn’t sit right with them, and as per their First Amendment right, they can peacefully assemble to voice those opinions. Much like what was shown in the previous order, the federal government does not seem interested in having a well-educated voter base because free-thinkers are much harder to control than those who follow the herd. As the cherry on the constitutional crisis cake, the government ordered Harvard to ban masks and implement “serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.” Again, this is not a surprise given this administration’s support for limiting or eliminating bodily autonomy, but it drives the knife in a little deeper.
“Discontinuation of DEI”
While I give President Trump credit in the sense that he is sticking to much of what was said during his campaign, unfortunately for U.S. citizens, he is sticking to much of what he said during his campaign. DEI, which stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion, became a buzzword for conservative politicians following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. DEI lacks a formal definition, but the broad sense of these initiatives seems to seek to open doors to qualified individuals who may be overlooked for various reasons. It is not exactly a secret that white men have dominated the professional sector for many years. President Trump and other critics claim that DEI initiatives produce “reverse racism” and discriminatory employment practices, handing over jobs to Black people over white people or women over men. While workplaces have become more diverse in recent years, that does not automatically signal that “unqualified” people are being given jobs. Had women and people of color been allowed and encouraged to participate in the workforce starting at the same time that white men were, the numbers we see today would probably be less than this hypothetical scenario.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is a phrase that seems to strike fear in the hearts of many MAGA Republicans, blaming those programs for their woes. However, when we really look at it, the opposite of diversity is uniformity, the opposite of equity is inequity, and the opposite of inclusion is exclusion. So, as a country, we need to decide if we support diversity, equity, and inclusion or uniformity, inequity, and exclusion. The Trump administration has made its stance clear, so when thinking about who to vote for in 2026 and 2028, please consider the values that this administration has shown thus far.
What’s next?
Harvard has chosen not to comply with the requests that the federal government has sent them. $2.2 billion in grants has since been frozen, accompanied by threats to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status. On Monday, Apr. 21, Harvard sued the Trump administration, furthering their fight for justice. Other universities, such as Columbia, have already caved to the demands of the government. Harvard is lucky to have as much funding as it does, but the grave reality is that if these orders were sent to smaller institutions with less funding, their choice would basically be to comply or shut down. On the bright side, given Harvard’s levels of funding, they have the best chance at fighting these clear constitutional violations, and hopefully, they will prevail.