logo
'Harvard isn't Harvard anymore': The crucible of free speech lacking the freedom it once had

'Harvard isn't Harvard anymore': The crucible of free speech lacking the freedom it once had

Yahooa day ago

Harvard graduates have a lot to say. In a sign of the times, now isn't the time to say it.
That much was clear when I sought student opinion at the gates of America's oldest university. There is a reluctance to talk about Trump.
"He needs to come back to this country," said a Harvard dad of his son, politely declining an interview on the youngster's behalf.
The young man, British, falls into the category of international student - a vulnerable species, currently, in America's elite university system.
For him, saying the 'wrong' thing carries the risk of an exclusion order to go with his graduation certificate. Dad knows best.
It is the modern reality at the gates of Harvard - this iconic seat of learning and crucible of free speech and ideas isn't as free as it was. For now, at least.
Read more:
It's fair to say Harvard had other things on its mind this week, with Thursday's 'commencement' day and graduation parades winding their route through surrounding streets in a 'town and gown' spectacle.
There were bagpipes and brass bands to lead students in their crowning moment. It was an emotional thank you and goodbye to Harvard, with a celebration soundtrack of music and 'mwah'.
And yet, there was a political undercurrent. There has to be, when a US institution is at war with its president.
Some students wore a white flower on their lapel as a symbol of solidarity with Harvard's international students.
In giving his speech at the podium, Harvard president Alan Garber was given a standing ovation when he noted that graduates hail from "around the world, just as it should be".
As graduates and families gathered in Harvard Yard, the university's defiance against Trump was playing out simultaneously in court, where the latest hearing took place on government efforts to stop the enrolment of foreign students.
Leo Gerden, a 22 year-old student from Sweden, was graduating in economics and government. We chatted while he stiffened himself with a Starbucks for the celebrations ahead.
What were his thoughts, as someone fitting the profile picked on by the government of his host country?
"I feel like the entire Harvard is under attack, because without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard anymore," he said.
"He's trying to crush us, but we have shown over the last couple of weeks that he won't do that easily. The uncertainty itself is going to cause a lot of harm.
"People are definitely reconsidering their plans right now, whether it was coming to America, going to any university, because they might be next on Trump's target list."
The distraction is widely shared across campus, so is the sentiment - not that it'll trouble the White House.
Places like Harvard don't lean Trump, and he'll lose few votes in this fight.
It is a conflict to shape the future of US education - it's politics, but it's much more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce

Politico

time32 minutes ago

  • Politico

Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce

SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process.

Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of federal workforce

time41 minutes ago

Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of federal workforce

SAN FRANCISCO -- An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process. __

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store