What's the status of Harvard's lawsuits against the Trump administration?
On Thursday, both sides are
Advertisement
US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued an emergency order last Friday temporarily blocking the government from removing Harvard from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which allows universities to enroll student visa holders.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The order was issued the same day Harvard filed its suit against the government and a day after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that Harvard's certification to enroll student visa holders was revoked 'effective immediately.' She said it means that international students already attending the school would have to transfer or lose their legal status to remain in the country.
Noem said the punishment was in response to Harvard's failure to provide information the administration had demanded on April 16 about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus.
Advertisement
'
This administration is
Noem accused Harvard's leadership of creating 'an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.'
However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.'
The suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with.
Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.
The visa programs, which allow international students to enter the United States and attend Harvard and thousands of other schools, 'have boosted America's academic, scientific, and economic success and its global standing,' the suit says.
The loss of visa holders at Harvard would impact countless academic programs, research laboratories, clinics, and courses supported by international students, the suit says.
'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the suit says.
In issuing the temporary restraining order last week, Burroughs ruled that Harvard had shown it could suffer 'immediate and irreparable injury' if it lost its ability to enroll international students.
Advertisement
What about the other case?
Burroughs is also presiding over a case involving a separate lawsuit Harvard filed last month alleging the Trump administration
The Trump administration said it was freezing Harvard's grants — much of them for medical and scientific research — because the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by f
Harvard alleges the action came without notice or explanation. It also argues the administration's goal is to exert improper influence over the school as part of a sweeping crackdown on elite universities to squelch ideological dissent, a violation of schools' First Amendment rights.
In its suit, Harvard said it has been taking steps
Those demands included cutting diversity programs and submitting to an audit assessing the 'viewpoint diversity' of its faculty, student body, staff, and leadership.
Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As American as Due Process
The U.S. is a nation of symbols: the bald eagle, the Statue of Liberty, baseball, apple pie. One symbol, however, has taken a beating lately, though it represents the core of the American project. Lady Justice predates the founding, but her likeness—blindfolded, holding scales and a sword—stands for the principles that the Founders insisted should rule the American legal system. While her spirit pervades the Constitution, it is most prominently featured in the Fifth Amendment's promise of due process: the principle that those accused of wrongdoing have the right to challenge the evidence against them before the government takes away their liberty. But not everyone who swore to uphold the Constitution is keeping that promise. "If you violated the law, you are not entitled to due process," Rep. Victoria Spartz (R–Ind.) said in a March town hall. In April, Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) posted an image on X that encouraged travel to Canada. "We won't throw you into an El Salvadorian [sic] gulag without due process!" the image read. "[The U.S.] absolutely will," Lee responded. Tom Homan, Trump's border czar, was asked on ABC if people sent to El Salvador had any due process. "Where was Laken Riley's due process?" he replied, referring to the Georgia nursing student who was murdered by Jose Ibarra, an immigrant who was in the country illegally and was convicted and sentenced to life without parole for the murder. Homan's non sequitur sums up the current debate, sparked by the Trump administration sending hundreds of Venezuelans it alleges to be gang members, without due process, to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a massive prison in El Salvador. That nation's president, Nayib Bukele, declared a state of emergency over three years ago and suspended basic civil liberties, such as the right to a fair trial. Questions about whether the administration is indeed expelling only dangerous gang members arose after CECOT received the men, the vast majority of whom have no criminal record. That includes, among others, Andry José Hernández Romero, a Venezuelan makeup artist who appears to have been flagged because he has two crown tattoos, and Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, whom the Trump administration illegally sent to CECOT due to what it says was an "administrative error." To argue that Riley's murder, tragic though it was, justifies skirting due process fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the doctrine. It is not to excuse criminal behavior, but to ensure that accusations—especially when they carry life-altering consequences—are publicly tested by evidence and judged fairly. Homan's logic would see due process abolished. It need not apply, he says, in the face of serious allegations or unsympathetic individuals, which is contrary to why the Founders demanded its inclusion in the Constitution. They knew the power of the state was dangerous. The government doesn't always get it right. "Because we said so" isn't sufficient reason to abrogate anyone's liberty. That the prisoners sent to CECOT were not citizens is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that even those suspected of being in the U.S. unlawfully are entitled to due process of law. And the people in question were not merely deported—they were sent without charge or conviction to a notorious megaprison, where Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, has said she hopes the men are kept for life. Is it possible that Hernández Romero, Abrego Garcia, and others are members of a gang? It is. It is also possible they are not. Consider that one man Noem attempted to deport narrowly made it to a hearing before she could do so because the plane malfunctioned—and the government was not able to produce any evidence that he was a member of the Tren de Aragua gang, according to his attorney. Justice should not be reduced to vengeance, and constitutional rights should not be treated as privileges, revocable at a politician's whim. A country that claims to value liberty cannot shed the process meant to protect it. If due process is no longer sacred, neither is justice; and if some of us do not have due process, then none of us do. Trump has defined himself as someone who fights for American values: "Make America Great Again." You cannot do that by discarding one of the core values that made the U.S. exceptional. The post As American as Due Process appeared first on
CNN
30 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: The Musk blowup reveals how Trump is remaking the presidency
Through a panoramic series of actions, President Donald Trump is transforming the federal government into a vast machine for rewarding his allies and punishing those he considers his adversaries. Trump is using executive orders, federal investigations and regulatory decisions to deploy federal power against a stunning array of targets, ranging from powerful institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities and major law firms to individual critics from his first term and former President Joe Biden's top White House aides. Simultaneously, Trump is rewarding allies with presidential pardons, commutations, government contracts and the termination of federal regulatory or criminal investigations. The explosive breakup with Elon Musk has provided the most vivid demonstration yet of Trump's transactional view of the presidency. When Musk was Trump's most prominent political ally and benefactor, the White House brushed off complaints about the potential for conflicts of interest as the tech billionaire's companies competed for billions in government contacts. Then, when the two men fell out last week, Trump immediately threatened to terminate the contracts for Musk's companies. Trump struck a similar note on Saturday, telling NBC's Kristen Welker that if Musk began to fund Democratic campaigns in protest of the president's sweeping policy bill, 'He'll have to pay very serious consequences.' The extraordinary episode underscored how quickly anyone can move from Trump ally to adversary by opposing or questioning him in any way — and how dire the consequences can be for crossing that line. In his almost instinctive reaction to threaten Musk's contracts — even if it would be difficult to do in practice — Trump signaled unambiguously that staying in his favor would be the difference between favorable decisions by his administration and costly confrontations with it. The president sees little boundary between public policy by the federal government and personal fealty to him. 'Never before in this country has a president made so clear that mere disagreement with him or failure to show sufficient personal loyalty might cause that person to lose government contracts or even face investigation,' said Ian Bassin, co-founder and executive director of Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan group that analyzes threats to US democracy. 'That's how things work in Russia, and apparently, under Donald Trump, now here.' Until Trump, historians considered Richard Nixon the president who pushed hardest to bend federal legal authority into a lever to advance his personal and political interests — a process that culminated in the Watergate scandal and the disclosure of the infamous White House 'enemies list.' But while Nixon fulminated against his opponents in private, he never subjected them to anything approaching the bombardment of hostile federal actions that Trump has directed at his targets. 'You see very similar personality traits in the men, about how they feel about people and what they want to do about them,' said John Dean, who served as Nixon's White House counsel during Watergate and later revealed the existence of the enemies list. But, Dean added, whereas Nixon would often lose sight of his threats or back off when faced with resistance inside or outside his administration, Trump and his aides are moving to draft virtually every component of the federal government into this mission. 'Everything with Nixon is more or less a one-off,' Dean said, 'whereas with Trump it is a way of life.' The effect is that, with much less pushback than Nixon faced, Trump is now moving far faster and further toward reconfiguring the federal government's sweeping authority into an extension of his personal will. 'We are so far beyond Nixon's inclinations and disposition to employ the government to attack perceived enemies and perceived political adversaries,' Dean said, 'that it is the difference between spitballs and howitzers.' Almost daily, Trump is acting in new ways to deploy federal power in precision-focused attacks on individuals and institutions who have crossed or resisted him. He has revoked federal security clearances from an array of former officials (including Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, and Republican former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger) and terminated federal security protection for others. He's withdrawn security clearances from and directed his administration to investigate two critics from his first term, Miles Taylor and Chris Krebs. Last week, Trump ordered a federal investigation into the right-wing conspiracy theory that aides to then-President Biden misused his autopen to implement decisions without his knowledge. Trump has ordered the Justice Department to investigate Democrats' principal grassroots fundraising tool, ActBlue. Large institutions Trump considers hostile have faced comparable threats. He's signed executive orders imposing crippling penalties on several large law firms that have either represented causes or employed attorneys Trump dislikes. Trump has canceled billions of dollars in scientific research grants to prominent universities and escalated that offensive with a dizzying array of other measures against Harvard, including attempting to revoke its ability to enroll foreign students and publicly declaring that the Internal Revenue Service intends to revoke its tax-exempt status: The New York Times recently calculated that Harvard is now facing at least eight separate investigations from six federal agencies. The Federal Communications Commission is investigating '60 Minutes' over its editing of an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, probing charges that television networks have engaged in 'news distortion,' and scrutinizing the proposed merger with Skydance Media that is being ardently pursued by CBS' parent, Paramount, and its controlling stockholder Shari Redstone. Trump's administration has arrested a judge in Wisconsin and US representative in New Jersey who have resisted his immigration agenda. While pursuing these penalties for critics, Trump has conspicuously rewarded allies. His Justice Department dropped federal corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, who has pledged to support Trump's immigration crackdown, and regulators have terminated high-profile enforcement actions against the crypto industry even as his family's financial ties to the industry have mushroomed. Trump has also issued a flurry of early second-term pardons targeted at his supporters, beginning with the mass pardon of January 6, 2021, rioters and extending to a growing list of Republican and conservative public officials. Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, author of 'The Pardon,' a recent history of how presidents have used that power, said Trump's actions have no precedent. 'It's not even close,' Toobin said. 'I can't even think of even a parallel.' Taken together, these actions signal something like a mafia-style protection racket, Bassin argued. For those who meet the administration's demands, Bassin said, Trump is offering protection from federal interference, and for those who resist his demands, he's brandishing the opposite. The speed at which Trump flipped from praising to threatening Musk and his companies, Bassin added, 'is a perfect example' of how no one is safe from falling from one side of that line to the other — which allows Trump always to preserve the option of raising the price of protection with new demands. It's a method of operation, Bassin argued, that would be equally recognizable to Russian President Vladimir Putin or mobster John Gotti. Nixon unquestionably wanted to sharpen federal law and regulatory enforcement into the cudgel Trump is forging. Behind closed doors in the Oval Office, Nixon often bombarded his aides with demands to punish those he viewed as his political enemies. 'We have all this power, and we aren't using it,' Nixon exploded to his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, in one August 1972 meeting captured by the White House taping system. At times, Nixon succeeded in channeling that power against his targets. He successfully pressed the Justice Department to intensify an investigation into kickbacks and illegal campaign contributions swirling around Alabama Gov. George Wallace. The administration tried for years to deport John Lennon (over a British conviction for possession of a half-ounce of marijuana) after Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond sent a letter to the Justice Department warning that the former Beatle might headline a series of concerts intended to mobilize young voters against Nixon's reelection. A team of White House operatives — known informally as 'the plumbers' because they were supposed to stop leaks to the press — undertook a succession of shady missions, culminating in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building that eventually led to Nixon's resignation. Chuck Colson, one of Nixon's most hardcore aides, tried to pressure both CBS and The Washington Post over their coverage of the administration by threatening FCC action to revoke the licenses of local television stations they owned. Colson and Nixon openly strategized about holding open the threat of a federal antitrust investigation to pressure the three television networks. According to research by Mark Feldstein, a professor of broadcast journalism at the University of Maryland, the plumbers even fleetingly discussed ways to assassinate investigative journalist Jack Anderson before they were diverted to a more urgent project — the Watergate break-in. In his obsessive hunt for leaks, Nixon illegally wiretapped the phones of both journalists and his own National Security Council aides. All these resentments converged in the development of what became known as the enemies list. The White House actually compiled multiple overlapping lists, all fueled by Nixon's fury at his opponents, real and imagined. 'It clearly originated with Nixon's disposition, anger, reaction to things he would see in his news summary in the morning,' said Dean. In an August 16, 1971, memo — titled 'Dealing with our Political Enemies' — Dean succinctly explained that the list's intent was to find all the ways 'we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.' Dean told me he wrote the memo in such stark terms because he thought it would discourage the White House. 'I actually wrote that memo that way thinking I would make this so offensive … that they would just say, 'This is silly, we don't do this kind of stuff,'' he said. 'I never got a response to that directly, but when I went to the (National) Archives decades later, (I saw) Haldeman had written 'great' on the memo with an exclamation point.' In fact, though, enthusiasm in the White House did not translate into action at the agencies. On the advice of Treasury Secretary George Shultz, the IRS commissioner put the list in his safe and ignored the White House request that he audit the people on it. Subsequent investigations found no evidence that those on the enemies list faced excessive scrutiny from the IRS or other government harassment. Once Dean revealed the list's existence during the 1973 hearings of the Senate Watergate Committee, inclusion on it became 'something for people to celebrate,' he recalled. 'I have actually spoken to (reunions of) a couple groups of members, people who have been on the list, because they had no consequences other than a badge of honor.' That was a common outcome for Nixon's rages. The Justice Department eventually dropped the case against Wallace. The courts blocked Lennon's removal. The Washington Post did not lose licenses for any of stations, said Feldstein, author of 'Poisoning the Press,' a book about Nixon's relationship with the media. 'Trump is doing what Nixon would have liked to have done,' Feldstein said. 'Even Nixon didn't take it as far.' The differences between Nixon and Trump in their approach to federal enforcement and investigative power extends to their core motivations. Nixon, as Dean and other close observers of his presidency agree, wanted to retaliate against individuals or institutions he thought opposed or looked down on him. Trump certainly shares that inclination. But Trump's agenda, many scholars of democratic erosion believe, pushes beyond personal animus to mimic the efforts in authoritarian-leaning countries such as Turkey and Hungary to weaken any independent institutions that might contest his centralization of power. 'Although some of it was (motivated by) revenge, the huge difference here is most of what Nixon did was to protect himself, politically and personally,' said Fred Wertheimer, who served as legislative director of the government reform group Common Cause during the Watergate scandal. 'Trump is out to break our democracy and take total control of the country in a way that no one ever has before.' One telling measure of that difference: Trump is openly making threats, or taking actions, that Nixon only discussed in private, and even there with constant concern about public disclosure. Trump's willingness to publicly deliver these threats changes their nature in several important ways, said David Dorsen, an assistant chief counsel for the Senate Watergate Committee and former federal prosecutor. Simply exposing an individual or institution to such an open threat from the world's most powerful person, Dorsen noted, can enormously disrupt their life, even if the courts ultimately prevent Trump from acting on it — a point recently underscored by Miles Taylor in an essay for Politico. And because Nixon's threats were always delivered in private, Dorsen added, aides dubious of them could ignore them more easily than Trump officials faced with his public demands for action. Maybe most important, Dorsen said, is that by making his threats so publicly, Trump is sending a shot across the bow of every other institution that might cross him. 'Trump is legitimizing conduct that Nixon did not purport to legitimize,' Dorsen said. 'He concealed it, he was probably embarrassed by it; he realized it was wrong.' As the IRS pushback against the enemies list demonstrated, Nixon's plans faced constant resistance within his own government, not only from career bureaucrats but often also from his own appointees. 'He failed in getting key officials in the government to do what he wanted,' said Wertheimer, who now directs the reform group Democracy 21. If that kind of internal stonewalling is slowing Trump's sweeping offensives against his targets, there's little evidence of it yet. Congress was another constraint on Nixon. Not only did the administration need to fear oversight hearings from the Democrats who controlled both the House and Senate, but at that point a substantial portion of congressional Republicans were unwilling to blink at abusive actions. Ultimately it was a delegation of Republican senators, led by conservative icon and former GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, who convinced Nixon to resign during Watergate. By contrast, Trump today is operating with 'a completely compliant Republican Congress' and has filled the federal government, including its key law enforcement positions, with loyalist appointees who 'operate as if they are there to carry out his wishes, period,' said Wertheimer. As Feldstein pointed out, Trump also can worry less about critical press coverage than Nixon, who governed at a time when 'there were just three networks and everybody watched those.' That leaves the courts as the principal short-term obstacle to Trump's plans. In Nixon's time, the federal courts consistently acted across party lines to uphold limits on the arbitrary exercise of federal power. Three of Nixon's own appointees joined the unanimous 1974 Supreme Court decision that sealed his fate by requiring him to provide Congress his White House tapes. John Sirica, the steely federal district judge who helped crack the scandal, was appointed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Today, federal district and appellate courts are mostly demonstrating similar independence. The New York Times' running tally counts nearly 190 rulings from judges in both parties blocking Trump actions since he returned to office. 'I think we've seen the largest overreach in modern presidential history … and as a result, you've triggered a massive judicial pushback,' said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, a group fighting many of Trump's initiatives in courts. 'I won't say democracy has won so far, because of the damage that Trump and his ilk have done, but I will say Trump lost.' But even if courts block individual Trump tactics, the effort required to rebuff his actions still can impose a heavy cost on his targets. And, on the most important cases, these lower court legal rulings are still subject to reconsideration by the Supreme Court — whose six- member Republican-appointed majority has historically supported an expansive view of presidential power and last year voted to immunize Trump against criminal prosecution for virtually any actions he takes in office. So far, the Supreme Court has sent mixed signals by ruling to restrain Trump on some fronts while empowering him on others. 'We haven't found out yet what the Supreme Court is going to do when … they get the really big cases,' said Wertheimer. Those decisions in the next few years will likely determine whether Trump can fulfill the darkest impulses of Richard Nixon, the only president ever forced to resign for his actions in office.
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Can the Ivy League band together to fight Trump's attacks on higher education?
Harvard University has suffered most of President Trump's blows, with the president stripping Advertisement At other schools, university presidents are giving interviews and campus speeches critical of the White House. Professors are unionizing to advocate for their research and students. And many alumni groups are spearheading public awareness campaigns to pressure their alma maters to fight back against Trump. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Because 'The fight is going to be won among the public,' said Jon Fansmith, vice president of the nonprofit American Council on Education. The Trump administration has arguied elite universities force-feed students leftist ideology and allowed antisemitism to run rampant since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023. The administration has announced investigations of colleges and universities allegedly discriminating against white people and cut off or threatened to cut federal funding to many schools. Advertisement At Columbia University, leaders in March said they would comply with the administration's demands after officials froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because the administration said the school failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. But that didn't seem to appease the White House, which announced last week it was targeting the school's accreditation, which could ultimately result in Columbia losing federal financial aid for its students. In April, several Big Ten conference schools formally signed on to a 'The Trump administration has no intention of backing down, and the only thing that will work to oppose him is strong collective action where we have each other's backs,' said Lieberwitz, whose university had Students on the campus at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., on March 7. HANNAH BEIER/NYT University presidents speak out Ivy League university presidents have responded differently to allegations of antisemitism on campus and the Trump administration's attempts to control how they run their schools. A Eisgruber, a constitutional law scholar, has been particularly outspoken, slamming Advertisement 'It's really important for conservative views to be welcome on a campus, but that's different from insisting on ideological balance on a campus,' Eisgruber told the host of The Daily this spring. After Harvard lost billions in science funding in April, Eisgruber posted 'Princeton stands with Harvard,' on his LinkedIn profile. At Brown University, the school's highest governing body recently extended president Christina Paxson's term through June 2028 in a show of confidence. Eisgruber's and Paxson's long tenures put them in better positions to speak out, higher education advocates told the Globe this spring. Other Ivies have recently been plagued by turnover among leaders, including high-profile oustings over responses to pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism. The presidents of Yale, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania were installed this spring. 'The other university presidents are not standing up for Harvard because they don't want to be the next one on Trump's list,' said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Presidents, a union. University presidents are also strategizing with lawmakers in Washington D.C., professors told the Globe. The largest public outcry from university presidents came on April 22, when hundreds signed a public statement with the American Association of Colleges & Universities against 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Dartmouth president Sian Beilock was the only Ivy president to not sign, despite being urged to by professors and alumni, said Derek Jennings, an active member of the Native American Alumni Association of Dartmouth. The school's director of media relations, Jana Barnello, said like other schools, Dartmouth has filed supporting declarations in lawsuits over the funding cuts. Advertisement Professors rally to organize against Trump While university presidents seem to be taking a more careful and calculated approach, many professors rapidly organized this spring, forming union chapters in an attempt to defend their research. 'The level of increased faculty activism at Dartmouth is demonstrating that those of us who value the ideals and values of higher education are not waiting for administrators to lead on this,' said Bethany Moreton, who helped launch Dartmouth's chapter of the American Association of University Presidents in May 2024. Membership has since ballooned to 150, she said. Across the Ivy League, researchers said they're best suited to publicly advocate for their work, describing their life-saving findings and discoveries at rallies and in letters to lawmakers, groups told the Globe. While some observers warn of a potential brain drain among professors to Canada or Europe in response to Trump's cuts to research funding, some said Trump's attacks are creating more unity among colleagues than they've seen in years. 'If the intention was to divide faculty and pit us against each other with all the threats, it's really not working,' said Princeton English professor Meredith Martin. 'We care so much about our students that, if anything, this is bringing us together and making us stronger.' During the recent school year, membership in AAUP surged to 50,000, from 42,000, with almost all of that after Trump's inauguration in January, according to the group, and is the largest spike since its founding a century ago. Alumni stand up for schools Alumni are also pushing administrators at their alma maters to do more to stand up for their schools' autonomy. Harvard's alumni campaign, Crimson Courage, met Friday in a packed auditorium on the Cambridge campus to discuss how it is 'reaching out beyond Harvard to build the campaign,' an event description said. Advertisement The group Stand Up for Princeton and Higher Education amassed more than 9,000 alumni supporters in the past five weeks. Some held signs and wore buttons while walking the P-rade route on May 24. The group's In Connecticut, the group Stand Up for Yale sent a Similar alumni groups are taking shape across the Ivy League, with several urging university presidents to sign on to group statements, alumni told the Globe. Schools must band together formally, experts say Many graduates said their support is for all of higher education, not just their alma maters. At the recent Princeton reunion after the P-rade, a Yale Divinity School student caught up with a University of Chicago Law School graduate over barbecue. Outside nearby Firestone Library, recent graduates of Yale's and Harvard's law schools enveloped in hugs. 'The education my peers and I received was life changing, and our schools know this and are not backing down on ensuring future students get the same opportunities,' said Joshua Faires, who has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a master's degree in sociology from Columbia University. HoSang, from Yale's AAUP chapter, said Trump knows higher education institutions depend on each other and share one 'ecosystem,' and so a threat against one is a threat to all, he said. Advertisement 'There is no saving Yale, Harvard, or Princeton without standing up for all of higher education,' HoSang said. Still, faculty and alumni need more support from administrators, some warned —all the way from the presidents at the top, said Wolfson, the national AAUP president. 'I think they need to be bold,' Wolfson said. 'And this is hard to do but I'll say it anyway: They need to put their institution second, and then need to put higher education — as a critical sector in US society — first.' Claire Thornton can be reached at
