William Brangham:
Yesterday, Harvard University became the first major school in the U.S. to push back against the Trump administration’s efforts against colleges and universities.
Last week, the administration told Harvard that nearly $9 billion of its federal funding would be in jeopardy if it didn’t change its hiring practices and address allegations of antisemitism. But Harvard rejected that request, writing that — quote — “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”
The administration immediately froze $2 billion in federal grants to the school, and President Trump suggested the school should lose its tax-exempt status “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist-inspired or supporting sickness.”
Joining us now is someone from Harvard who supports the university’s position. Cornell William Brooks is a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
Professor Brooks, very good to have you on the program.
Alan Garber, who’s the president of the university, separately wrote — quote — “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represented direct governmental regulation of the intellectual conditions at Harvard.”
Is that how you see it?
Cornell William Brooks, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School of Government: I see it precisely that way.
And I have to commend President Garber for taking a financially, fiscally consequential stand a politically difficult decision, but one that was made morally simple by the fact that the Trump administration essentially demanded that Harvard essentially welcome the government into the regulation of Harvard, the management of Harvard, the hiring and firing of Harvard, the admitting of students at Harvard in a way that would be unprecedented.
To be clear about, this would be like alleging some violation of the law in terms of a company or a corporation, and thereafter the government demanding to run that company, run that corporation. And that is unlawful, it’s unconstitutional, and it is profoundly unfair.
