Harvard Is Wise To Not Consider $500 Million Settlement With Trump
The university's president has maintained that Harvard will not risk losing its academic freedom, and it may delay any settlement negotiations until after a final court ruling.

Last week, The New York Times reported that Harvard University was open to a $500 million settlement with the Trump administration to put an end to an ongoing feud over allegations of antisemitism on campus. But Harvard faculty familiar with the matter have refuted the claim—one believed to have been leaked by White House officials—and told The Harvard Crimson that the university's president, Alan Garber, is seriously considering a court resolution rather than striking a deal.
The news of a possible Harvard settlement came just five days after news broke of Columbia University's $200 million settlement with the Trump administration. As part of the announcement of Columbia's settlement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the deal would serve as a "roadmap for elite universities," insinuating that ongoing negotiations—such as with Harvard—could meet a similar fate.
The feud between Harvard and the Trump administration was sparked in April after Harvard refused to comply with a list of sweeping demands to change governance, discipline, hiring, and admissions policies in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. For its defiance, President Donald Trump retaliated by freezing $2.6 billion in federal research grants to the university. Harvard filed suit, arguing that the funding freeze violated constitutional free speech protections. Since then, the Trump administration has deployed different tactics—including attempting to revoke the university's ability to enroll international students, investigating and subpoenaing information on its international students, and attacking its accreditation for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—to escalate the standoff and move the school closer to striking a deal.
Trump has publicly stated that he believes Harvard will come to a deal with his administration. According to the Times, sources said that "Trump has privately demanded that Harvard pay far more than Columbia" and that he "told aides that he will not green-light a deal unless the…university agrees to spend many millions of dollars." However, while the university and its over $53 billion endowment may be able to afford a $500 million settlement, Garber reportedly told faculty that academic freedom is a nonnegotiable. Appointing an independent monitor to oversee policy changes—like what was agreed to in the Columbia settlement—could also be a red line for Harvard officials. Garber has maintained that Harvard will not risk losing its academic freedom, and with its early court wins, the university may delay any settlement negotiations until after a final court ruling, according to the Crimson.
However, Trump has already vowed to appeal any court opinion that rules against his administration. Even if Harvard wins in court, the university will still have to contend with the fallout and any ongoing tension between it and the administration that could potentially impact the university's bottom line—like the recent university endowment tax hike from 1.4 percent to 8 percent or following through on threats to revoke Harvard's cost-saving tax-exempt status.
Columbia and Harvard have taken disparate approaches to dealing with Trump's attacks: While Columbia signaled early a willingness to negotiate and make accommodations for the president's antisemitism allegations, Harvard has taken a hard-line approach against government encroachment. Rebuffing the Trump administration's settlement attempts is yet another differentiator between the two and will help inform other institutions that may soon come under fire—such as UCLA, which recently had $200 million in federal research funding frozen by the administration over alleged antisemitism violations.
Harvard officials are right to suspect that complying with Trump's demands will bring a higher level of oversight and compromise academic freedom. But to protect itself long term and mitigate against intrusive government action, Harvard—and other universities—must eschew federal funding altogether.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"The university's president has maintained that Harvard will not risk losing its academic freedom, and it may delay any settlement negotiations until after a final court ruling."
An "elite" college that doesn't realize that after a final court ruling there is nothing to negotiate?
Save your money and learn to weld.
For college boys, they aren’t very bright.
The biggest idiots I've ever met had Ph.D after their name.
Like our resident Harvard alumnus, Charlie Hall.
Fat, drunk, and is no way to go through life.
You do know that appeals exist? It is possible to negotiate after the lower court ruling and before appeals.
Then it's not a "final court ruling".
In other words, Harvard will not stop discriminating against demographic groups the progressives disfavor.
Yeah, that's the problem: What they MEAN by "academic freedom" is the freedom to engage in racial, sexual, and political discrimination against anybody they dislike. A freedom they'd never extend to the people they dislike.
I frankly think most of these institutions are lost causes. We should defund them while creating parallel institutions that aren't yet corrupted.
We should defund them while creating parallel institutions that aren't yet corrupted.
Or just not create the replacement institutions at all. We no longer live in Medieval Europe where you have to go to the guilds to learn a trade or a University or Monastery to learn religion or study natural philosophy.
What discrimination?
How to show you're a progressive idiot whose idiocy is getting progressively worse.
Even a progressive who thinks the discrimination is good, or denies it exists, at least knows which discrimination to approve of or deny.
Asians and whites.
Where have you been?
Don’t forget the Jews. They real'y hate Jews.
Last time I went to see a concert at The Sinclair I pahked my cahh at Hahvad yahd.
Did you eat some chowdah too?
Nope. But I did have a couple beeyas.
Did you have to take the train with your Charly Cad?
He left his car keys in his khakis
Stop sending any taxpayer coerced money to Harvard or any other school, college, and university.
I'm down with that.
But I would like to note we are complaining about taxpayer money to schools on a system that was created partly by schools using taxpayer money (The Internet).
I’m also for significantly cutting defense spending despite Arpanet being the precursor to the internet. I think we will still have nice things when cutting trillions from the swamp.
Governments and taxpayer money did not invent the internet, neither did Al Gore.
What are you, a libertarian or something?
Can we also stop spending any taxpayer coerced money to military contractors?
As little as possible as far as I'm concerned. But ya know the constitution actually authorized that. It doesn't mention Harvard at all.
I agree. All funding for military DEI, “don’t ask don’t tell” and rainbow cult initiatives should be cancelled immediately. Not a penny to the military contractors providing such services.
"...Not a penny to the military contractors providing such services."
And billing us for the fantasies of the TDS-addled lying pile of slimy shit MG!
Man, Harvard really hates the Jews.
Not as much as Trump hates Hahvahd for not letting Baron in.
Of course they wouldn’t let Barron in. They found out his o,de resister is a JEW!
tell me more about this "academic freedom" at Harvard
There should be no negotiating involved. End any tax exempt status for universities, and end all government subsidization of them as well. Then they can discriminate however they want, and people can go to whichever university to which they can gain acceptance.
Harvard filed suit, arguing that the funding freeze violated constitutional free speech protections.
So if the Trump administration decides that forklift drivers in Burbank no longer have to pay for Harvard's z-list academic bullshit, that's a violation of Harvard's free speech...
...the fuck outta here.
Harvard and most other colleges have been sucking up taxpayer money and discriminating in violation of the Constitution for how many years now? Three possible solutions:
1: Stop discriminating.
2: Stop sucking up taxpayer money.
3: Drag out the court battles until a Democrat is in charge again.
Looks like Harvard is choosing Door Number 3.
Time for Republicans to tax endowments. Hard.
Yeah it's not complicated.
And Reason is supporting that decision.
Where in the Constitution does it say discrimination is not allowed?
Where does it say I have to pay for it?
The Sixteenth Amendment.
The 16th amendment says we have to pay for discrimination?
Nope.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
Nope, nothing about discrimination.
Hey, congratulations on agreeing with Rand Paul that the CRA, at least in regards to privately owned businesses, is unconstitutional.
Ask LBJ, one of your heroes, whose anti-discrimination laws are approved by the courts.
Ask Bob Jones.
Where in the Constitution does it say discrimination is not allowed?
It's good to see left wingers openly embrace their support for racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination. For far too long they've gotten away with lying about it.
Read A14, asswipe.
>>Harvard will not risk losing its academic freedom
Harvard is free to continue 100 years of hating Jews and I am free to not pay for it.
According to these statistics Jews are doing better than non Jewish whites. It's estimated that 20% of students are Jews.
ttps://blog.collegevine.com/harvard-university-diversity-statistics
Overview of Harvard University Diversity Statistics
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 11.6%
Black or African-American 9.3%
White 35.4%
American Indian or Alaska Native 0.22%
Asian 21.7%
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0.1%
Two or more races, non-Hispanic 7.44%
Race and/or ethnicity unknown 1.12%
In addition to these populations, 23.8% of students are international.
positively Machiavellian.
Nice.
The Nazis called their preference "The Final Solution", so "academic integrity" certainly sounds nicer.
Nothing can harm education and the advancement of knowledge more than destroying debate and dissenting ideas as has occurred over the last couple of decades.
Do it Harvard. Go for broke. No pun intended.
Once again another post with the MAGAs showing just how stupid they are.
Yup. These "libertarians" really love government power when their guy's sitting in the throne.
Progressives coming out IN FAVOR of discrimination.
Harvard does not want to abide by civil rights law? They can always go private.
Made up accusations of discrimination. And the libertarian stance is to let the market sort it out. Don't like Harvard? Don't apply there. But you're not libertarian so you wouldn't know that.
So a “no blacks” sign on my restaurant is ok?
Should be, in a free society.
And then Obama (white mother, African black father) walks in and says he's white.
Or someone walks in and halfway through dinner says his great great grandma was black.
You'd be busted for inconsistency, fraud, or something.
Did you have a point anyone could understand, shitstain? Didn't think so..
Government funding is not the market retard.
Chef Sarckles would burn your steak intentionally.
Ketchup will take care of that. Lots of ketchup.
Brilliant retort. This is the kind of well reasoned debate that makes the Reason comment section so valuable. Your compelling insights are sure to win the hearts and minds of the libertarian community.
Please explain to us why Harvard should get taxpayers' money when it gets about $1 billion annually from its alumni.
Because.... *checks notes* they don't hate Jews?
Can someone explain to me why Harvard needs taxpayers' money when it gets over $1 billion from its alumni annually?
After Trump cuts them off he should seize their endowment.
Why couldn't they just give up and close - the way CPB is? Sad.
The feud between Harvard and the Trump administration was sparked in April after Harvard refused to comply with a list of sweeping demands to change governance, discipline, hiring, and admissions policies in the name of combating antisemitism on campus.
Compare this reaction to how quickly Harvard and all US universities adopted the fraudulently issued "Dear Colleague" letter requiring (among other things) the elimination of due process rights in campus sexual assault cases. It's clear universities adopted those because they were colluding with the DOE officials who developed and issued the letter [Russlyn Ali, among others] and thus university administrators should be held liable for the resulting civil rights violations as well as the issuing DOE officials.
^+1
Believing that Harvard does anything wise is very naive. Pretentious, arrogant, sure, but not wise. Harvard is more narcissistic than Trump, and that's really saying something.
Anyone remember the "Cambridge 5"