Just recently, the Trump administration froze $2 billion in federal funding towards the prestigious university, Harvard. The institute has sued the Trump administration, as it believes freezing its funding is unlawful and would greatly hamper its medical research programs. However, Harvard is not the full victim here and will most likely lose the case.
Harvard is already the richest university in the world with an endowment of over $50 billion. For those who do not know, an endowment is a big savings account. Harvard only spends a small portion of its endowment yearly, using mostly donations and federal funds; therefore, their endowment grows. Furthermore, since 2017, Harvard has accepted at least $1.1 billion in gifts or contracts from foreign sources. The top countries contributing to Harvard are England and China, which have each given over $100 million to Harvard over the last 8 years.
Harvard is currently in violation of Article 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Article 6 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. The college has held pro-Palestinian protests on campus, which is the Trump administration’s main argument against Harvard. They have said the institute is anti-Semitic and is discriminating against Jewish students. Harvard’s main rebuttal against this claim is that the Trump administration has not given them enough time to fix this issue on their campus. However, it has been over 15 months since this issue was brought to light.
“I feel like it’s not justified, even though it has been a considerable amount of time… I think… they should be given… three [more] months, because that would make it 18 months, a year and a half,” explained Sophomore Sam Tracy.
“As a private university, they’re free to pursue any topic they like – as long as their campus stays within the confines of the Constitution – but that doesn’t automatically entitle them to our tax money,” OpenTheBooks CEO John Hart to Fox News Digital said.
Harvard has been in legal trouble with the Supreme Court before, with the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. This means that universities cannot consider race as a factor in admissions decisions, including to achieve diversity. The Court found that Harvard’s policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they lacked a compelling justification, relied on racial stereotypes, and did not offer a clear endpoint. The goal of the process, according to Harvard’s director of admissions, is ensuring there is no “dramatic drop-off” in minority
admissions from the prior class. Harvard was accommodating black and Hispanic students while undermining white and asian students from admissions.
Freshman Everett Bye explained his opinion, saying that America is one of the few non ethnic nations. “So when we start talking about Israel, we talk about Israelites also.” Bye then explained, “one can criticize the representation of people without criticizing the people themselves.”
One major argument against defunding Harvard is that their critical disease research programs will be significantly hurt. Harvard is one of the top medical research schools in the country. Studies on pediatric cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease would most likely be affected. Furthermore, articles from The Guardian explained that the Trump administration could be trying to have a say in who Harvard admits, who they hire and even what courses they teach.
History teacher Brady Hannigan said that University research plays a huge part in the development of technologies, medicine, agriculture and everything that helps run the country.
An article from CNN explained that Harvard may plan to use the Administrative Procedures Act as their main evidence against the Trump administration. The article stated that the act “requires the Court to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Trump has also been quoted as saying that federal funding is a privilege. This statement has caused much debate. However, federal funding is a privilege, not a right. The government has the right to subject recipients to certain conditions and requirements, including compliance with federal laws and regulations.
“I do think it is a privilege, but not [of] what you’re doing, but how you do it. If you’re very good at research and producing good things that benefit America, I think that’s a good thing [that deserves funding],” Hannigan said.
Overall, the government is not in the wrong. Though Harvard’s research programs are some of the best in the country and could be considered crucial to medical and scientific development, the institute has broken federal law multiple times; if the government wants to take away their funding, it is justified and legal.
“I feel like it’s a very slippery slope that you have a president that… wants to push an agenda through to universities by withholding funds and dictating what they teach and how they teach and how they teach it… that can significantly change by the next president,” Hannigan said.
