Academic Freedom Podcast on the Federal Funding Freeze Aimed at Harvard University

An explainer from Cass Sunstein

A new episode of the Academic Freedom Podcast has been released. The podcast is sponsored by the Academic Freedom Alliance and the Center for Academic Freedom and Free Speech at Yale Law School.

This episode features a conversation with Cass Sunstein, the Robert Walmsley University Professor at Harvard Law School and former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. His recent working paper, "'Our Money or Your Life!' Higher Education and the First Amendment," explores the First Amendment constraints federal funding to American universities.

In the last few weeks, the Trump administration has made several announcements that it is withholding a significant amount of federal funds from specific universities, notably Columbia University and Harvard University, and that those funds will not be released until those universities comply with a set of demands. Harvard received a letter on April 11 demanding changes in Harvard's governance, faculty hiring practices, student admissions practices, viewpoint diversity among the faculty, and student disciplinary policies, among other things. On May 5, the Secretary of Education sent a letter to Harvard informing the university that the federal government will award it no grants for scholarly research in the future. Reportedly, there is more than $2 billion dollars at stake.

On the podcast we talk through what the Trump administration is doing, what the consequences are for Harvard and other affected universities, and what constitutional issues are raised by the administration's actions in denying Harvard access to federal research funds. In the process, we get a short course on First Amendment doctrine relating to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions.

Comments

[Joe_dallas]

I agree that academic freedom is a core principle. Though why should taxpayers pay for harvard's or any other private institution's "academic freedom"

[Supremacy Claus]

Sunstein is an America hater, Trump deranged academic. He is discussing defunding his employer. Went to Harvard, works at Harvard. He wanted to give animals legal standing to generate make work for the lawyer profession. Like, GTFOH.

Harvard has the same views of America as the Chinese Commie Party. 99% of its intellectual output is toxic garbage. De-exempt it. Defund it. De-accredit it. Shut it down. Seize its assets in civil forfeiture.

[Harry S]

Who needs bioengineered cures for diseases or clean air or water or safe food when you can have culture wars against people you don’t like eh? Any amount of personal suffering is worth that for some folks. That is the message of the MAGA movement from what I can see.

[Sarcastr0]

No one is paying for Harvard's academic freedom.

Grants are not made for academic freedom. They are to perform research.

[Joe_dallas]

you might try to actually educate yourself on what is called research in those grants.

Lots of grants that are make work research.

[Sarcastr0]

you might try to actually educate yourself
I hope you don't come in this supercilious in real life.

what is called research in those grants
Between the two of us, it's my job to work the Notices of Funding Opportunity, work the technical evaluations, panel reviews, and final selections, and make sure the grantee meets their reporting requirements.

I keep very good track of what's called research.

You do some accounting and post on the Internet very mockable comments claiming to be an expert in everything.

Lots of grants that are make work research.
I, of course, can't speak for every grant out there.
But I do know the policy requirements quite well, and it'd be quite a feat to keep a make-work grant on the books given the review and reporting requirements.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Trump is a loose cannon -- what he well may do is cancel ALL federal money to ALL of higher ed. And while he is at it, cancel ALL student visas.

Remember that the majority of voters do not have children in college. So if Trump were to take this money and use some of it to fund some student loan forgiveness and the rest to give everyone another stimulus check, who would be upset?

Blue state politicians -- only those from states where this would be a net loss. Massachusetts definitely, probably California, maybe Michigan, but beyond that? And will Trump lose any support from folk who already hate him?

The larger issue is that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

When you look at what happened in Switzerland last weekend -- rioting in SWITZERLAND of all places -- it's clear that we need to reign in the Hamas Fan Clubs.

We shouldn't be expected to subsidize our demise!

[jb]

Remember that the majority of voters do not have children in college. So if Trump were to take this money and use some of it to fund some student loan forgiveness and the rest to give everyone another stimulus check, who would be upset?

Blue state politicians -- only those from states where this would be a net loss. Massachusetts definitely, probably California, maybe Michigan, but beyond that? And will Trump lose any support from folk who already hate him?

And here, gentle reader, we have the Boomer political philosophy in a nutshell. As long as you can loot the country on your way out, who cares what's left over when you die?

By the way: the biggest chunk of money the federal government provides to Harvard is grants for medical research. Across the board, it's not like the government gives universities grants to subsidize their general operations. Would probably be helpful for y'all to at least look into what kind of funding the government provides to various institutions and why before deciding it's a bad idea.

[bernard11]

Would probably be helpful for y'all to at least look into what kind of funding the government provides to various institutions and why before deciding it's a bad idea.

Nah. Too hard. Much easier to just rant pointlessly.

[Bob from Ohio]

"what kind of funding the government provides to various institutions and why before deciding it's a bad idea"

Medical research can be conducted anywhere. Before federal funding started, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic privately did a lot.

If Harvard doesn't get grants, Ohio State or Florida will. The researchers at Harvard will just go there. Harvard uses the grants as leverage to hire people, boo hoo if they lose that unfair privilege.

[jb]

LOL, it's not like Harvard has some special earmark from the federal government for a certain amount of grants each year. They compete for them just like other universities.

In fact, Harvard doesn't even get a particularly huge amount of federal research grant money compared to some others. Johns Hopkins gets 5x as much, University of Washington gets twice as much, the big University of California schools get more, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt and Duke get more. Even the University of Utah gets nearly as much. It's stupid to think institutions are just fungible, though: programs and researchers have specialties, individual projects can't necessarily be turned off and restarted immediately. But I guess as long as Trump wants to have a tantrum over the schools Barron got rejected from, you guys will come up with some dumb pretext to back into supporting him.

[Ted Chen]

If the schools you list are doing much more medical research than Harvard, then research isn't going to be affected much from excluding Harvard from receiving medical research grants. The grants can be "redistributed" as Bob says.

[y81]

Is the suggestion that Hopkins, Cal etc. are not just as leftist as Harvard? How many of those schools have you attended? (For me, it's Yale, Berkeley, and Columbia. What's your body count?)

[Ted Chen]

Using an analogy. A prosecutor has limited time and must prioritize.

Does going to one of those Universities make my argument sound better than if I did not?

I will tell you the college I went to if you tell me the college you went to. Maybe then you can discount my arguments because your college is placed 5 spots higher than mine on some ranking.

[Ted Chen]

I didn't read carefully enough. My apologies.

As you have already done what I asked. I am confirming that I went to one of the institutions in your post. I do not want to be more specific because I prefer not to leave personal details on the internet.

[Bob from Ohio]

"For me, it's Yale, Berkeley, and Columbia."

If you are an example of their alumni, cut them off too!

Al the "elite" colleges including John Hopkins are nests of lefties. You can't kill them all at once!

[Sarcastr0]

Research is not fungible.

[Bob from Ohio]

" They compete for them just like other universities."

Using the names of the researchers they got using prior grants.

"Harvard doesn't even get a particularly huge amount of federal research grant money compared to some others"

Then it's not important. John Hopkins can just get more!

"schools Barron got rejected from"

Second such allegation here. Evidence?

[Sarcastr0]

the names of the researchers they got using prior grants
With a few specific exceptions, PI names are by regulation not allowed to be part of the technical evaluation of a grant proposal.

John Hopkins can just get more!
Using criteria other than technical excellence to pick grants is exactly what you yelled was DEI.

[Bob from Ohio]

"PI names are by regulation not allowed"

Oh, by regulation. Are the names included? Are prior projects referenced so the name[s] can be guessed?

"criteria other than technical excellence"

No criteria technical excellence at John Hopkins!

[Sarcastr0]

So you think program managers guess who is writing a proposal so they can select them because...they like them? You aren't making any sense.

No criteria technical excellence at John Hopkins!
I think what you mean is JHU can do technically excellent work. I expect so, but if Harvard would have out competed them and Harvard is taken off the table, you're selecting a suboptimal performer for political reasons.

That's what you claimed made DEI so bad.

[y81]

My doctor went to Harvard. Yours went to Ohio State. Hahaha!

[Bob from Ohio]

Credential-ism kills.

Its talent, not the name on the diploma that matters.

[Social Justice is neither]

Why am I required to pay for your Marxist praxis of hate against me? You want to be a racist bigot against the "right people" then be a shitty person on your own dime.

[Ted Chen]

Bill Ackman, a Harvard alumnus and far from far a right partisan, says Harvard is ideologically captured.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1926871423789781233

[jb]

Counterpoint from Steven Pinker, a (Jewish) Harvard professor who has been very critical of the erosion of academic freedom there:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/opinion/harvard-university-trump-administration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KU8.Xctk.vW4-zQJ7RFhU&smid=url-share

[Bob from Ohio]

"dozens of prominent conservatives, like the legal scholar Adrian Vermeule and the economist Greg Mankiw"

There are dozens of them! Out of 2500

Mankiw voted for Harris, so few conservatives, he has to use a Harris voter to have a recognizable name.

[Glaucomatose]

And Ackman voted for Trump. What's your point? The current state of partisan politics is so far from the traditional left-right split as to be unrecognizable.

[Bob from Ohio]

"What's your point?"

Pinker used him as an example. Voting for Harris refutes his point.

If Harvard was so welcoming to conservatives, Pinker could have come up with a non-Harris voter name we'd recognize.

[jb]

Ah, "no true conservative." I see.

[Social Justice is neither]

Well, when the example is actually not a conservative...yeah.

[Ted Chen]

I am not sure what you consider in the link to be a counterpoint. Can you clarify?

What I see is lots of evidence of Harvard becoming a far left church. The article provides a lot of evidence that there is no academic freedom at Harvard. It is a rule of the mob. A biologist was driven out of Harvard for explaining how biology defines males and females. Quote below.

How can Harvard call itself an academic institution after that?

"Yet some of the enmity against Harvard has been earned. My colleagues and I have worried for years about the erosion of academic freedom here, exemplified by some notorious persecutions. In 2021 the biologist Carole Hooven was demonized and ostracized, effectively driving her out of Harvard, for explaining in an interview how biology defines male and female."

[Sarcastr0]

You see lots of evidence...via a tweet from a Trump guy.

That's you seeking a conclusion...it's not evidence.

Another clue is when you start calling stuff you don't like a church. Partisan-brained behavior.

[Ted Chen]

What is the difference between Harvard today and the Roman Catholic Church during certain periods of history?

Gregor Mendel (of genetics fame) was a friar in the Catholic Church. Would you claim then that the Catholic Church was an institution of higher learning?

The Catholic Church condemned scientists as heretics when they didn't support the world according to the Bible. I gave one example of those at Harvard condemning a scientist for saying what determined biological males and females. One of the most basic facts in science.

[Sarcastr0]

So your version of the Catholic Church seems like it contains Mendel's work in the 1800s and Galileo's issues about 200 years earlier.
Some Protestants, myself included, might take issue with the idea that it was the Bible the Catholic Church was enforcing. I'd guess some Catholics too.

You gave a huge-ass wall of text that's mostly ipse dixit and uses undefined nonsense words like 'neo-Marxist.' It's partisan twaddle that you shouldn't offer for truth any more than if I offered.

I don't know the full story of that Hooven lady, but I do know that whatever it is won't make Harvard into a church.

[Ted Chen]

De jure a church? No, Harvard is not and will never call itself a church or take legal steps to be one.
De facto a church? Definitely moving in that direction if not there. And I think the populace can call something a duck if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Common criticisms of Christianity (only picking on Christians because that is what the left is usually referring to when they say "religion")
*anti-science: Carole Hooven was hounded out of Harvard because she gave the scientific basis of biological males and females.
*must adhere to orhtodoxy: refer to above
*casts out heretics: refer to above
*studying increasingly esoteric things about dogma (eg not science): As somebody who is not a Christian, one of the arguments that the atheists made against Christianity that resonated with me was that Christianity was studying super esoteric thing like how many Angels were on a pin. Increasingly, whole Harvard academic departments are effectively there.

For the Christians and people of other religions. I respect all faiths and see the value of religion for people. Please take my arguments in this comment thread to only be about how many in the US would define the bad points of Christianity and other religions. I am making no commentary on religions in general.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep straining so you can use church as an insult. Surely that'll get you somewhere.

[jb]

It's a counterpoint in two respects:

First, although Pinker acknowledges problems at Harvard, he also points out that a lot of the problems are blown out of proportion:

So I’m hardly an apologist for my employer when I say that the invective now being aimed at Harvard has become unhinged...

Call it Harvard Derangement Syndrome...

But a woke madrasa? This is black-and-white splitting, in need of behavior therapy. Simply enumerating cancellations, especially at a large and conspicuous institution like Harvard, can overshadow the vastly greater number of times that heterodox opinions are voiced without anyone making a fuss. As troubled as I am by assaults on academic freedom at Harvard, the last-place finish does not pass the smell test.

Second, he makes the case that Trump's punitive approach is both misguided and counterproductive:

Just as clear is what won’t work: the Trump administration’s punitive defunding of science at Harvard. Contrary to a widespread misunderstanding, a federal grant is not alms to the university, nor may the executive branch dangle it to force grantees to do whatever it wants. It is a fee for a service — namely, a research project that the government decides (after fierce competitive review) would benefit the country. The grant pays for the people and equipment needed to carry out that research, which would not be done otherwise.

Mr. Trump’s strangling of this support will harm Jews more than any president in my lifetime. Many practicing and aspiring scientists are Jewish, and his funding embargo has them watching in horror as they are laid off, their labs are shut down or their dreams of a career in science go up in smoke. This is immensely more harmful than walking past a “Globalize the Intifada” sign...

Hope that helps! Generally when reading, I find it helpful to go through the whole article rather than just cherry picking the paragraphs that support your point!

[Ted Chen]

I am not sure why that is a counterpoint to Ackman? Since you threw out the have read the link in the argument. What in Ackman's tweet do you disagree with?

In my opinion, neither points you pulled out are effective in responding to Ackman.

1) "a lot of the problems are blown out of proportion": Is this an argument that people at Harvard can cancel people saying scientific facts that are going against certain parts of the leftist dogma (Carole Hooven), but look, Harvard lets this other person say something else against leftist dogma? I don't know why Pinker or you think this is a convincing argument.

I mean. Flipping the argument. A Trump spokesman can say that Trump can cancel Harvard because obviously Harvard is anti-academic freedom due to the pervasiveness of leftist views. But obviously this is fine because Trump will allow some Universities to have some leftist views.

2) "a federal grant is not alms to the university": Yes, the Federal government is contracting with an University to do scientific research. As it is hard to tell the quality of the research sometimes, it is a big red flag if some of the University's stakeholders do not support basic scientifc facts. It suggests that the Federal government is not going to get what it contracted for. Thus, the Federal government is deciding not to work with that University. There are so many Universities that can do scientific research. Why risk getting bad research from Harvard.

[Sarcastr0]

What in Ackman's tweet do you disagree with?
It's a lot of text; here's what jumped out at me after a few moments.

"Harvard students have been taught that the world can only be understood as a battle between the oppressors and the oppressed, a dangerous anti-American neo-Marxist ideology"
Having met Harvard students, I don't think this is true. It also uses an undefined but scary-sounding term: neo-Marxist.

"Under DEI, one’s degree of oppression is determined based upon where one resides on a so-called intersectional pyramid of oppression where whites, Jews, and Asians are deemed oppressors, and a subset of people of color, LGBTQ people, and/or women are deemed to be oppressed."
This is made up. A search for "intersectional pyramid Harvard" turns up Ackerman's writing, associated derivatives, and nothing from Harvard.

"according to DEI, capitalism is racist, Advanced Placement exams are racist, IQ tests are racist, corporations are racist"
False. Made up according to Ackerman's unsourced definition of DEI.

"the April 29th release of its Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias makes clear that antisemitism remains pervasive on campus because of its deep ideological roots within the faculty"
That's not what the report said.

[jb]

Seems kind of pointless to try to have a conversation with someone when their goal is to intentionally mischaracterize or mostly just ignore the points on the other side, but I'll try one more time:

On the "blown out of proportion" discussion, to a certain you could characterize Pinker's argument as "isolated examples of people being cancelled aren't representative of the overall academic environment". He makes a similar case around antisemitism (which is directly responsive to Ackman) in that his experience and other Jews on campus agree that there's problems with antisemitism, but that it's nothing like how its being characterized by others. Pinker makes the broader point that trying to look at these issues in black/white terms as you seem intent on doing is harmful and leads to a poor understanding of others.

On the question of research grants, your argument for withdrawing them doesn't have anything to do with the rationale provided by the Trump administration, so at best they're a post hoc rationalization. But it's also not responsive to the second half of Pinker's argument in any case, since he makes the case that Trump's approach is actually more detrimental to Jews at Harvard than anything that the administration is trying to punish.

[Ted Chen]

"Seems kind of pointless to try to have a conversation with someone when their goal is to intentionally mischaracterize or mostly just ignore the points on the other side, but I'll try one more time:"

That is awfully strong rhetoric for somebody claiming that somebody else is using strong rhetoric. I will address your claims. Please address mine.

"blown out of proportion": How is Harvard's leadership not defending a biologist giving the scientific reason for biological males and females in 2021 not a huge red flag? The biggest issue I have with many on the left. There is all this recognization that words matter and social pressures matter, but it doesn't matter when a leftist is doing it.

My rhetoric may be strong, but I think it was a fair way to represent Pinker's point.

your argument for withdrawing: I did take it further than the Administration has said. How about? The Federal government doesn't want to give any money to an insitution that is clearly anti-semitic? Pinker's argument that taking funds from Harvard hurts Jews is not supported by anything besides his rhetoric. He gives no numbers of how many Jews are hurt, how much funding is lost. As he gives no numbers, I will take the side of not funding anti-semitic institutions. I have already seen a terrorist kill 2 Israeli diplomats on US soil.

[David Nieporent]

Bill Ackman is a Trump partisan.

[Ted Chen]

Just trying to understand your point. Is the argument that one should disregard a person's argument (Ackman in this case) if they publicly voice support for a presidential candidate or president?

[David Nieporent]

No. My point was that your description of Ackman as "far from far [sic] a right partisan," isn't really accurate.

[Ted Chen]

I think it is more accurate than to say Ackman is a "Trump partisan".

Ackman has said he usually votes for Democrats. He has said that he cannot support Democratic politicians at least in 2024. Trump is the other major party candidate. It is true that Ackman supports Trump, but my read is that it is to get his preferred policies enacted.

Partisan is defined as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person." Though I have no evidence, I would be surprised if Ackman cares about Trump after 2028. I take that to mean Ackman views Trump as a means to an end. Potentially, Ackman may support JD Vance but my opinion is that only occurs if Ackman determines Vance's views line up with Ackman's views. Thus, Ackman may be an "Ackman partisan" (my placeholder for whatever strong views Ackman holds), but not a "Trump partisan".

[Sarcastr0]

Ackman has said he usually votes for Democrats. He has said that he cannot support Democratic politicians at least in 2024.

That's a flag it's a bit. It's a really common bit. It may even be legit (though it's a very good grift for a mediocre intellectual).

But if it is, where he started doesn't matter; he's MAGA now.

[y81]

What does Ackman say about the rest of the US News top 25?

[ReaderY]

Trump is mostly in the construction business with a considerable need for tradespeople as well as lawyers, fixeds, and shady deal makers. What use does he have for Harvard? He not only has no use for the people it tends to graduate, they tend to be prejudiced against people like him. So why should he spend his money on things that don’t benefit him?

Trump never pretended to be some hair shirt- wearing Francis of Assisi who sacrifices himself and lives in poverty for the benefit of others. He does what’s in his interests, plain and simple. He was elected on the premise that what is good for Donald Trump is good for America. That was basically his entire campaign platform.

Since Harvard isn’t good for Donald Trump, it follows pretty straightforwardly from his platform that it can’t be good for America.

[hobie]

Correct. All that Trump does is to either better his clan or from personal grievance. All the graft and open corruption are fairly obvious. So that leave the grievances. Zelenski, the law firms, universities. We can pretty much trace most to the source insult. But where does Harvard and Columbia fit in? And don't anyone start blathering about antisemitism. Trump doesn't give a fig about Jews or Israel or any other human being. So what's the real beef? Is it the Barron thingy?

[bernard11]

The real aim is showing his fans that he can damage Harvard and those hoity-toity liberals. He's running a vendetta just to show off to MAGA fools.

If we lose out on some useful research discoveries so what? Ivermectin will cure most things anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"If we lose out on some useful research discoveries so what?"

Only Harvard can discover things? The grants will just go elsewhere. discoveries still occurring.

[Ted Chen]

I don't understand why this is a criticism of Trump. Trump was clear what he would do if elected. The voters elected him president and Trump is following through.

Also, are you claiming that Democrats don't do this? When Democrats are in office, they most assuredly try to shut down industries/companies that disagree with Democrats governing philosophy. Example 1 is that the coal industry was actively targeted by Democratic administrations. Were there reasons for the policies? Sure. But there are reasons for a conservative president to use legal means to not support a college that is basically a wing of the Democratic party.

[Glaucomatose]

You mean like when he promised to give green cards to all foreign students who graduate from US colleges?

And leaving aside the question begged in your last sentence, this isn't a regulatory shift to "not support" an industry in general; this is using the powers of the federal government to specifically target a specific, private institution with every means at its disposal: gutting its federal grants, ending its federal contracts, ending its tax-exempt status, banning it from enrolling foreign students. Find us an example of any Democratic president doing anything similar.

[Ted Chen]

Democrats: Coal industry was polluting the air and water. We must regulate them out of existence.

Republicans: Harvard is polluting academic research with their leftist views and no longer defends free academic inquiry. We must stop giving them Federal funds.

[Glaucomatose]

Nothing has been regulated out of existence. Hell, the US coal industry employed more people after Biden's presidency than before it. Besides, that explicitly doesn't respond to what I asked about, which is using the powers of the federal government to target a specific entity with every possible means at its disposal, not just a broad regulatory shift applicable universally.

[Ted Chen]

"US coal industry employed more people after Biden's presidency than before it."

Please provide a source for the claim. I am not saying it is wrong, but I feel that potentially, there are nuances in the claim.

[Glaucomatose]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU1021210001

[Ted Chen]

Thank you providing the link to the data.

You are correct, but also misleading.

During Biden's term, more people were employed in the coal industry than before. But that isn't really a rebuttal against my claim (ie Democrats want to shut down the coal industry). The coal industry was declining during the whole ~40 year time period in the chart. But employment had stabilize at a 70-80k jobs level for a little more than a decade and didn't seem to be affected by two recessions (Dot Com, Great Recession).

Then in 2012, it takes another nose dive to 50k jobs. I attribute that to the industry/Wall Street realizing that Obama was probably going to be re-elected and decided to invest elsewhere. It goes down again to ~40k jobs in 2020, probably due to COVID. Yes, it was at all time lows of 35k jobs in Nov 2020 when Biden was elected and it went up 42k jobs in Nov 2024 when Trump was elected.

So the net scorecard is that Democrats have halved the coal industry based on employment.

[vaadu]

Harvard doesn't have a right to taxpayer funds. The elected representatives have a right to attach strings to taxpayer funds to ensure they are used properly and in compliance with the law.

[ReaderY]

Mr. Trump is not Congress. Only Congress can impose conditions on spending. And it has not done so. And where it has, it has required recipients to receive due process including notice and hearings before being cut off.

[Ted Chen]

That seems to take a very narrow view of the Executive Branch powers. Is the Executive Branch not responsible for making sure that Federal funds are not supporting anti-semitism? That the insitutions are not engaging in viewpoint discrimination?

[Glaucomatose]

"Is the Executive Branch not responsible for making sure that Federal funds are not supporting anti-semitism? That the insitutions are not engaging in viewpoint discrimination?"

First sentence, meet second sentence.

[Ted Chen]

Is your argument that the Federal government must fund all viewpoints?

Must fund marxist ideology
Must fund DEI
Must fund anti-semitism
Must fund anti-science (Carole Hooven)

[Glaucomatose]

My argument is that saying that Federal funds should not support a certain viewpoint is incompatible with saying that the institutions should not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

[Ted Chen]

Your argument is techncially correct. There is an inconsistency there.

But the Federal government already has a long history of not supporting views that it finds questionable. That has been done by both parties.

[Sarcastr0]

There is an inconsistency there.

But

Few things are more corrosive in politics than the conviction that you have been wronged so much that you're justified in breaking all the rules to get even.

[Ted Chen]

There are few things more corrosive to a democracy when its citizens decide to adopt political parties as their tribe.

[David Nieporent]

Is your argument that the Federal government must fund all viewpoints?

Once again: the issue here literally has nothing to do with "funding viewpoints." The government is not giving money to Harvard; it is paying Harvard to do research.

[Ted Chen]

Can you clarify what you meant by the money isn’t going to Harvard?

Isn’t Harvard paid “overhead” (sorry I can’t remember the technical name)? Isn’t that money going to Harvard? Wouldn’t giving those funds to Harvard allow it economies of scale it wouldn’t have? I am all for Harvard teaching whatever it wants. It can become like Bob Jones college circa 1980.

[David Nieporent]

I didn't say that money isn't going to Harvard; I said that the government isn't giving money to Harvard. And then I elaborated: it's paying Harvard to do things. It's fee for service, not an appropriation.

[Josh R]

Expanding on what David said, the government need not fund viewpoints it dislikes. For example, if the funds are for curriculum development, the government can condition the funding on Harvard not using the money to teach the virtues of DEI.

But, what the government cannot do is condition funding for medical research on Harvard not using its own money to teach the virtues of DEI (See FCC v. League of Women Voters, 1984).

[Sarcastr0]

Wouldn’t giving those funds to Harvard allow it economies of scale it wouldn’t have

Indirect costs also go to research, and also need to be accounted for in required financial reports.

[John F. Carr]

"First Amendment doctrine relating to viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional conditions"

Harvard also invites discussion of mixed motive actions. There is evidence of illegal discrimination by Harvard. There is also reason to believe political disagreement is the real problem. Once the required process is followed, which may not have happened yet, does it matter what the real motive is?

[y81]

You know what would be really funny? If the Supreme Court held that the Trump administration's actions violated the First Amendment, and cited David Bernstein's book for the proposition that the First Amendment overrides claims that certain speech violates anti-discrimination law. (I mean, the second item would be the funny part.) I will suggest this to the Almighty in our next conversation, although of course He is reading this comment anyway.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The Trump administration has ordered US embassies worldwide to immediately stop scheduling visa interviews for foreign students as it prepares to implement comprehensive social media screening for all international applicants." The Guardian. Joseph Gedeon in Washington Tue 27 May 2025 13.31 EDT

Harvard should have co-operated.

[Ted Chen]

My view too. Though I am hard on Harvard in this post, I am not a burn it all down person. To me, it was obvious that Trump would escalate this all the way.
But, I don't know if Harvard will back down. It is obvious the most rational thing to do considering the expected values of continuing to fight. From what I see though, there is a principal agency problem though. What's best for those leading Harvard is to fight, even if that is worse for Harvard (and academia in general).

[Sarcastr0]

Ted: "Though I am hard on Harvard in this post, I am not a burn it all down person"

Also Ted: "Republicans: Harvard is polluting academic research with their leftist views and no longer defends free academic inquiry. We must stop giving them Federal funds."

[Ted Chen]

Has Harvard offered to work with the Administration on the parts that can be improved?

Feel free to correct me, but Harvard's position seems to be, we don't have to change anything.

[Sarcastr0]

They did a whole internal report, actually. You used it as ammo for Trump, but that's certainly not how Harvard sees it.

This is because you will ignore what you want, believe what you need, to back the administration (read: Miller) to burn down Harvard.

There is no negotiation, there are no reasonable demands, if you read the letter the Administration sent. I see no evidence you did so.
And there's also tons of lies, which you pushed along with others.

This isn't some negotiation; there is no get-well plan for Harvard. You seem to realize that above. But you'll lie to pretend this is all good faith for the few rubes out there who want to hear that.

[thesafesurfer]

Harvard is in the end a private, chartered institution. Let Harvard fulfill its mission as a completely private institution devoid of public funding. If Harvard survives it will do so by its direct appeal to the American people. If Harvard flourishes its supporters stand vindicated and the school is stronger going forward. With current leadership this outcome is a pipe dream.

[y81]

Other than scientific and medical research, Harvard could survive comfortably without federal funding. Are you under the impression that the African American studies department or the law school gets a lot of federal money?

You know what would be funny? If your children got some obscure disease for which research funding had been cut off and died. Although if they aren't vaccinated, they may die of plain ordinary measles before that.

[thesafesurfer]

It is heartening to see how flat this "Harvard is a beacon of education and a crucial American institution" harangue is falling flat with the American people. Today Harvard is a corrupt institution leeching much more from the body politic that it adds. The decay of American higher education finally faces a reckoning.