Harvard University gave a respectful but firm tone in a letter to the Trump administration on Monday, arguing that the university and administration shared the same objectives, thought they differ in their approaches. It was the last movement in an extraordinary round trip between the school and the federal government in recent weeks.
Alan M. Garber’s letter, president of Harvard, was sent a week after the Trump administration said it would stop granting Harvard any research subsidy.
Last month, the university is the government to court what has called Ulawful intrusion to its operations. But on Monday, Dr. Garber’s tone was softer, saying that he agreed with some of the Trump administration concerns about the highest education, but that Harvard’s efforts to combat intolerance and encourage an environment for free expression harmed by government actions.
Dr. Garber said he embraced the objectives of curbing anti -Semitism on the campus; Fostering more intellectual diversity, including the welcome of conservative voices; and restrict the use of race in admission decisions.
These objectives “are undermined and threatened by the overreach of the federal government on the constitutional freedoms of private universities and their continuous contempt for Harvard compliance with the law,” Dr. Ir. Garber said in the letter to Linda McMahon, the Secretary of Education.
The university’s response occurred a week after Ms. McMahon wrote to Harvard to advise the university not to request future subsidies, “since none will be provident.” That letter caused new concerns within Harvard about the long -term consequences of his clash with the Trump administration.
“In the best case, a university should comply with the highest ideals of our nation and illuminate the thousands of hopeful students who walk through their magnificent doors,” McMahon wrote. “But Harvard has been ideal.”
By overcoming a list of conservative complaints about school, Ms. McMahon was enraged by the “swollen bureaucracy” of the university, its admission policies, its international students, their hug of some Democrats and even their mathematics curriculum.
Mrs. McMahon referred to Harvard as “an institution of public funds,” even thought that Harvard is private and most of his income does not come from the government. She suggested that the university depends more on her own funds, noting that Harvard’s endowment, valued at more than $ 53 billion, would give her a “start of the head.” (Much of Harvard’s endowment is linked to restricted funds and cannot be reused at will).
“Today’s letter,” wrote Ms. McMahon, “marks the end of the new subsidies for the university.”
In Dr. Garber’s letter on Monday, he said that the University had created a strategy to combat anti -Semitism and other fanaticism, and had invested in the academic study of Judaism and related fields. But he said that the university would not “deliver its central and legal principles for fear of unfounded reprisals by the federal government.”
He denied Ms. McMahon’s statement that Harvard was a politician.
“It’s Neith Republican or Democrat,” he said about the university. “It is not an arm of any other party or political movement. Nor will it be. Harvard is a place to unite people of all origins to learn in an inclusive environment where ideas flour regardless of whether they are or algúnedative”, “or some kind”
Althegh Harvard is the richest university of the nation, with much, the officials there have warned that federal cuts could have devastating consequences on the campus and beyond. Duration The 2024 fiscal year of Harvard, the University received: $ 687 million from the federal government for research, a sum that represented approximately 11 percent of the university’s income.
The government can block the federal money flow through a process called Debrandent. But the procedure is laborious and the result can be appealed. Government hiring experts said the letter from Mrs. McMahon indicated that the Administration had not followed the ordinary procedure so that the blacklist with a recipient or federal funds.
Harvard officials are aware that, even if they challenge successful administration tactics in the Court, the Trump government could still take other measures to drown the money that would be more difficult to fight.
The Federal Government establishes priorities for investigation that shape the daily decisions of agencies on how and where federal dollars are spent. Some academics are concerned that the government may far from the fields of study in which Harvard has a deep experience, effectively excluding university researchers. Or the administration could simply say that Harvard’s proposals were incompatible with the government’s needs.
Jessica Tillipman, an expert in government hiring right at the University of George Washington, said it may be difficult to demonstrate that the government is using a subsidy receiver for the blacklist.
“Basically you have to demonstrate and point out concrete evidence, not just a feeling,” he said.
Even so, he said, McMahon’s letter could offer Harvard an opening to dispute a prolonged streak of subsidy denials.
“It’s not so difficult to try,” Mrs. Tillipman said, “when you have a giant letter that says, by the way, we are no longer giving you these things.”
