Trump’s assault on higher education

First, big law capitulated to the Trump administration. A few fought on and secured federal court rulings protecting their constitutional rights.

Tasting the blood in the water, President Donald Trump fired off additional executive orders targeting additional law firms with threats and demands. The capitulators say they had no choice if they were going to protect their bottom lines and keep their corporate partners and clients happy and on board.

The settlements, some of which astonishingly were on a handshake, have started to unravel over Trump’s unusual view of the “pro bono” legal work the firms would have to do under their deals for him and his pet projects.

Next, the administration went after private colleges and universities. A target list of 60 institutions of higher learning was developed by a special federal task force. Oddly, 90% of the targets were in jurisdictions that voted against Trump in 2024. Columbia University came first because of its mishandling of the campus unrest over the Gaza War. It was punished financially, and the university quickly capitulated.

Seeing how easy it was to make Columbia roll over, the administration went after Cornell, Northwestern, Brown, University of Pennsylvania and Princeton. Alleged antisemitism and, of course, evil DEI policies were the offenses that carried significant financial penalties.

And then came Harvard. A few days after April Fool’s Day, a modest two-page letter went from the federal task force to Harvard raising antisemitism and DEI issues, which evoked a mild inquiry from Harvard as to what the administration had in mind

Harvard, under the leadership of its Jewish president, Alan Garber, already had taken significant steps dealing with the antisemitism issue and was also grappling with the latest ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race-based admissions.

Eight days later, a lengthy and threateningly invasive letter arrived over the signature of the three senior members of the administration’s task force. Harvard’s reaction was swift and sharply negative. A Harvard spokesman described the letter from the government as “breathtakingly intrusive.”

Garber, Harvard’s president, said, “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The task force required that Harvard “reform and restructure” its governance to reduce the power of certain students, faculty and administrators. The task force required Harvard to hire a third party to conduct an “audit of the viewpoints of Harvard’s student body, faculty and staff.”

Based on the completed audit, Harvard must hire a critical mass of faculty and admit a critical mass of students to achieve “viewpoint diversity” in each “department or field of teaching” to the government’s satisfaction as determined by the government’s sole discretion.

The government demanded that Harvard terminate or reform its academic programs to the government’s liking. Harvard would be required by the government to eliminate all elements of DEI throughout the institution. Harvard would have to adopt student disciplinary reforms to the government’s satisfaction. Harvard would be required to identify with particularity all foreign students enrolled at any of Harvard’s institutions within the next several weeks, so that the government could determine whether they should be allowed to remain in or leave the country.

Harvard’s letter in response to the task force demands was clear:

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard, nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts (to date) and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms, long recognized by the Supreme Court.”

Harvard’s letters and statements fairly describe the oppressive and intrusive demands set forth in the task force’s letter. Several things happened in quick response.

The administration set a punishment of $2.2 billion dollars in frozen multiyear grants and cancellation of a $60 million contract. And lest we think this punishment is the end, remember that Harvard has $6.5 billion in additional multiyear grants and an additional $200 million in contracts.

These punishments are based on NO findings or factual determinations but only on the areas of concern expressed in the task force letter. No due process here, either.

And, astonishingly, the administration suddenly claimed that the April 11 task force triple-signed letter to Harvard was mistakenly sent. And that the university was overreacting to the letter and just playing the victim.

In further response or apology for the negligently mailed letter, Trump added an accelerant to his ill-conceived warfare — he has unlawfully written the IRS seeking the cancellation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

The war on higher education — so far limited to colleges generally in blue states — should be condemned by all of us. There is no justification for the nuclear weapon hurled at Harvard or the larger attack on our higher education system that is the envy of the entire world.

The administration has taken a significant campus antisemitism issue and turned it into a firebombing of a systemwide national treasure. The bully has gone too far. The attack on Harvard has caused the world of higher education to have taken a commendable common defense approach that Big Law could learn from.

Courage is contagious. Every other college on the target list — including our own storied Johns Hopkins — should be lawyered up (from firms not compromised by caving to the administration) to protect their own valuable tax-exempt status.

Editorial Advisory Board members Arthur F. Fergenson and Debra G. Schubert did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Nilson

Catherine Curran O’Malley

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.