Harvard to hold graduation in shadow of Trump ‘retribution'
CAMBRIDGE, United States: Harvard is due to hold its annual graduation ceremony Thursday as a federal judge considers the legality of punitive measures taken against the university by President Donald Trump that threaten to overshadow festivities.Thursday's commencement comes as Trump piles unprecedented pressure on Harvard, seeking to ban it from having foreign students, shredding its contracts with the federal government, slashing its multibillion-dollar grants and challenging its tax-free status.Harvard is challenging all of the measures in court.The Ivy League institution has continually drawn Trump's ire while publicly rejecting his administration's repeated demands to give up control of recruitment, curricula and research choices. The government claims Harvard tolerates antisemitism and liberal bias.'Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper,' Trump said Wednesday.Harvard president Alan Garber, who told National Public Radio on Tuesday that 'sometimes they don't like what we represent,' may speak to address the ceremony.Garber has acknowledged that Harvard does have issues with antisemitism, and has struggled to ensure that a variety of viewpoints can be safely heard on campus.'What is perplexing is the measures that they have taken to address these (issues) don't even hit the same people that they believe are causing the problems,' Garber told NPR.Basketball star and human rights campaigner Kareem Abdul-Jabbar addressed the class of 2025 for Class Day on Wednesday.'When a tyrannical administration tried to bully and threaten Harvard to give up their academic freedom and destroy free speech, Dr. Alan Garber rejected the illegal and immoral pressures,' he said, comparing Garber to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.Madeleine Riskin-Kutz, a Franco-American classics and linguistics student at Harvard, said some students were planning individual acts of protest against the Trump policies.'The atmosphere (is) that just continuing on joyfully with the processions and the fanfare is in itself an act of resistance,' the 22-year-old said.Garber has led the fight-back in US academia after Trump targeted several prestigious universities including Columbia which made sweeping concessions to the administration in an effort to restore $400 million of withdrawn federal grants.A federal judge in Boston will on Thursday hear arguments over Trump's effort to exclude Harvard from the main system for sponsoring and hosting foreign students.Judge Allison Burroughs quickly paused the policy which would have ended Harvard's ability to bring students from abroad who currently make up 27 percent of its student body.Harvard has since been flooded with inquiries from foreign students seeking to transfer to other institutions, Maureen Martin, director of immigration services, said Wednesday.'Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,' Martin wrote in a court filing.Retired immigration judge Patricia Sheppard protested outside Harvard Yard on Wednesday, sporting a black judicial robe and brandishing a sign reading 'for the rule of law.''We have to look at why some of these actions have been filed, and it does not seem to me seemly that a president would engage in certain actions as retribution,' she told AFP.Ahead of the graduation ceremony, members of the Harvard band sporting distinctive crimson blazers and brandishing their instruments filed through the narrow streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts – home to the elite school, America's oldest university.A huge stage had been erected and hundreds of chairs laid out in a grassy precinct that was closed off to the public for the occasion.Students wearing black academic gowns also toured through Cambridge with photo-taking family members, AFP correspondents saw.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Angry Groups Emerge and Fade in Syria, Terror Cells or Shadows?
When Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa met US President Donald Trump in Riyadh on May 14, the encounter marked a striking departure from Syria's political norm, and one that sent ripples of surprise through both allies and adversaries. While many Syrians expressed enthusiasm over the unexpected meeting, the reaction was far from unanimous. For extremist circles, the image of al-Sharaa seated beside a US president, long portrayed in their rhetoric as the embodiment of a hostile international order, triggered deep unease and, in some cases, fury. The backlash was swift and fragmented. Although not centrally coordinated, it was visible across encrypted Telegram channels - the platform of choice for many extremist groups - as well as in private gatherings and scattered posts on the social media platform X. Reactions ranged from suspicion and ideological denunciation to outright accusations of apostasy. The criticism largely targeted al-Sharaa's growing openness to the West, particularly Israel, and debated the legitimacy of such outreach under Islamic law. Despite the noise, these objections appear to carry little political weight inside Syria's emerging state institutions. Analysts and insiders say the dissent does not reflect the views of the security and military apparatus that has taken shape following the collapse of the former regime. At the heart of this new order is a coalition of former factions, notably those once aligned with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which now forms the backbone of Syria's restructured army and civil institutions. These groups have largely rallied around al-Sharaa, endorsing his foreign policy moves and viewing his leadership as best suited for steering the country through a fragile transition. The new Syrian army, drawn from multiple factions that once formed the joint operations room which toppled the Assad government in Damascus, has since consolidated under state command. Most of its components now back al-Sharaa, even as he pushes for diplomatic normalization, including tentative overtures to Israel - a shift they see as necessary for post-conflict stability. While Syria's new institutions rally around al-Sharaa's push for reconciliation and international engagement, a defiant voice has emerged from outside the state structure - one that rejects his overtures and threatens to reignite instability. The group calling itself Saraya Ansar al-Sunna has so far been the only actor to publicly oppose al-Sharaa's trajectory. Shrouded in secrecy, the group is among the newest armed movements to surface following the collapse of the Assad regime. Its presence remains confined to encrypted Telegram channels, where it has adopted a hardline tone steeped in religious denunciation and threats of violence. It has yet to establish a visible presence on the ground or disclose a clear organizational identity. In a recent statement circulated online, the group vowed to escalate attacks across Syrian provinces and in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli - where it previously claimed activity. The message marked a sharp warning from a faction that, despite its limited footprint, could stir trouble through lone-wolf operations, a method favored in such ideological circles. Saraya Ansar al-Sunna first claimed responsibility for an attack in February in the village of Arzeh in Hama province, which killed more than ten civilians. The group's founding statement framed the assault as part of a campaign of 'sectarian revenge' targeting Alawites and Shiites, whom it referred to using derogatory sectarian terms. The communiqué also described the group as 'decentralized' and reliant on autonomous cells with no identifiable leadership or headquarters. Although Syria's Interior Ministry declined to provide details on the group, officials confirmed they are closely monitoring its activity – a sign that authorities consider the threat credible, despite the group's lack of formal structure. Who are Saraya Ansar al-Sunna? Sources in northern Syria told Asharq Al-Awsat that the group has claimed responsibility for a series of assassinations in rural Hama and Homs, targeting Alawite civilians. The group framed the killings as 'retribution' against alleged Assad loyalists, or 'shabiha', whom they accuse the state of failing to prosecute. The sources said growing frustration over the lack of transitional justice has fueled accusations that the state is delivering 'selective justice,' a phrase increasingly used to mock what some see as a stalled reconciliation process. Despite fiery rhetoric and threats, the shadowy group has yet to establish a tangible presence on the ground. So far, its activities remain confined to anonymous, closed Telegram channels, where it disseminates sharply worded statements steeped in religious condemnation and anti-government sentiment. According to sources familiar with extremist activity in central Syria, the group relies entirely on text-based messaging and has shown no visual evidence of leadership or organized operations. Two names have emerged frequently in connection with the group: 'Abu Aisha al-Shami' and 'Abu al-Fath al-Shami' - likely pseudonyms. Both are believed to be former members of Hurras al-Din, an offshoot of al-Qaeda. Intelligence suggests they have since reemerged in small clandestine cells operating quietly in parts of rural Homs and Hama. In one statement posted on a Telegram channel, Abu al-Fath al-Shami - introduced as the group's 'religious authority' - launched a scathing attack on President Ahmad al-Sharaa, accusing him of apostasy and betrayal. His message, couched in harsh ideological language, cast the new Syrian government not merely as a political adversary but as a theological enemy - a marked escalation in tone. Still, the group has so far refrained from direct armed confrontation with the Syrian state. Instead, it appears to be focused on retaliatory attacks against what it calls the 'social incubators' of the former regime - a reference to Alawite civilian communities historically aligned with Bashar al-Assad. This approach, emphasizing ideological hostility over direct conflict, reflects a broader, long-standing rift within the extremist landscape in Syria. It mirrors the old divide between al-Qaeda's traditionalist wing and the more localized, pragmatic faction led by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham under al-Sharaa. Though this internal split had faded from prominence, al-Sharaa's high-profile meeting with Trump in Riyadh appears to have reignited it, sparking renewed debate among radical ideologues. Prominent extremist figures have stepped up criticism of al-Sharaa, accusing him of betraying ideological principles in pursuit of political gains, particularly following his unprecedented outreach to the US and Israel. Among the loudest voices was Khaled Abu Qatada al-Ansari, a former senior figure in Hurras al-Din, who denounced the Syrian state as 'treasonous' and accused it of deviating from the 'true path.' His comments were echoed by Samer al-Ali, also known as Abu Ubaida, a former religious authority in Jabhat al-Nusra, who charged al-Sharaa with abandoning the core tenets of the original project for political pragmatism. Outside Syria, criticism followed a similar pattern. Abu Abdullah al-Shami, a well-known ideologue based in Iraq, described al-Sharaa's foreign policy pivot as a 'fundamental betrayal of doctrine.' Meanwhile, a stark split emerged among veteran thinkers: cleric Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi reaffirmed his staunch opposition to al-Sharaa, framing his overtures to Washington and Israel as a departure from religious 'constants.' In contrast, Abu Qatada struck a more nuanced tone, suggesting that such shifts might be necessary in the post-Assad era to safeguard the revolution's gains. The debate underscores a widening rift between two ideological camps - one branding al-Sharaa an apostate, the other viewing his actions as a pragmatic response to evolving realities and branding him as the 'man of the moment.' No Organized Opposition Within the State Despite the heated rhetoric, former military commander Adham Abdulrahman told Asharq Al-Awsat that there is no significant extremist bloc within Syria's government or its security institutions challenging al-Sharaa's policies. 'This is the policy of a state, not just one man - even if al-Sharaa is the architect,' he said. 'While there is still public and religious discomfort around peace with Israel, it's no longer as emotionally charged as it once was. Over time, these sentiments may coalesce into various forms of opposition, but they won't be exclusively religious – they could be nationalist or political as well.' He added that even radical factions, especially foreign fighters who once resisted integration, are now gradually shifting their focus. 'Most of them are moving toward reintegration, prioritizing daily life and stability. They may not fully endorse the new government, but they're adapting - I've seen this happen in multiple cases,' Abdulrahman said. Extremist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda are attempting to exploit discontent within Syria's shifting political landscape, but analysts say al-Sharaa's government – forged through years of conflict – is proving far from vulnerable. 'ISIS is actively seeking to regroup and recruit from disillusioned or marginalized segments, relying on its familiar slogans,' said former military commander Adham Abdulrahman. 'But this new government, born from an authentic organizational experience and equipped with deep security and military know-how, is not an easy target.' Diverging Currents in HTS According to Ahmad Sultan, a researcher specializing in Islamist movements, internal divisions are emerging within the HTS, the backbone of the new Syrian state. 'Some factions within HTS still cling to hardline ideology and remain visibly frustrated with al-Sharaa's policy shifts,' Sultan told Asharq Al-Awsat. 'They lack a coherent vision for governance beyond regime collapse and still regard any contact with perceived enemies as tantamount to apostasy.' By contrast, other elements within HTS advocate a more pragmatic approach. 'They view political openness as a tactical necessity for this phase,' Sultan said. 'al-Sharaa's administration is walking a fine line between these factions to preserve cohesion amid Syria's complex reality.' Sultan emphasized that the pro-al-Sharaa bloc remains dominant. 'The opposition within HTS doesn't represent the majority. The leading current supports Sharaa and wields greater power,' he said. 'The administration has made it clear that it won't align with anti-engagement elements, though it may seek to pacify them to avoid destabilization - especially as al-Sharaa's international legitimacy hinges on curbing extremism.' Fears of Splits, Push for Consolidation The researcher warned that any significant rift within HTS - the central pillar of the state - could destabilize the entire administration and potentially spark internal conflict. 'Al-Sharaa's government is preparing to tackle critical files: the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the northeast, the presence of foreign fighters, border control, and consolidating central authority,' Sultan explained. 'To do that, it must neutralize ultra-hardline elements within.' He added that al-Sharaa is relying on practical methods to prevent extremist drift inside his administration, including religious education and theological persuasion aimed at preserving unity. 'Some clerics close to al-Sharaa command real influence among hardline circles,' Sultan said. 'If tensions escalate, these figures could play a key role in diffusing conflict through religious argumentation and appeals to collective responsibility.' Al-Sharaa is prepared to take tough measures - including arrests and even eliminations - against hardline elements within the state who reject moderation and persist in incitement. 'Containment through religious dialogue is the preferred option,' said Sultan. 'But when that fails, the alternative may be surgical removal of factions that prove resistant to integration.' Sultan warned that the government will not tolerate extremist mindsets if they shift toward agitation and destabilization. 'If a radical current chooses confrontation, al-Sharaa will not hesitate to resort to decisive tools, including imprisonment or targeted action,' he said. Strained Popular Base Despite the state's assertive posture, some observers caution that the strategy carries risks, particularly if it alienates the broader revolutionary base that once fueled Syria's rebellion. 'The Syrian landscape remains fluid and unpredictable,' said Mohamed Ibrahim, also known as Abu Yahya al-Shami, a former military commander within an Islamist faction. 'If the government wants long-term stability, it cannot afford to lose the core support of former revolutionaries.' Al-Shami, who remains closely connected to Islamic movements, drew a clear line between constructive dissent and extremist rhetoric. 'Takfir- branding others as apostates - is the weapon of extremists and ISIS sympathizers. It's unacceptable to many of us within the Islamist current,' he told Asharq Al-Awsat. He stressed that criticism of al-Sharaa's government should be expressed through informed, balanced discourse. 'There is no such thing as 'legitimate chaos.' Sharia is the standard by which actions are judged. Disagreements must be addressed scientifically and socially, not through disorder.' Al-Shami also warned that hardline rhetoric by extremist groups risks influencing disillusioned youth and fueling radicalization in Syria's fragile post-war landscape. 'There is concern that some enthusiastic or overly zealous youth may be swayed by extremist narratives,' al-Shami told Asharq Al-Awsat, adding that 'those with experience and awareness are working to contain these tendencies, which only aggravate problems rather than solve them.' He also cautioned that ISIS remains a looming threat, capable of exploiting simmering discontent in Salafi circles and drawing in defectors from factions opposed to Syria's new leadership under al-Sharaa. 'ISIS thrives in environments where ignorance and extremism take root,' he said. 'The group could recruit from those who once fought under revolutionary banners, only to find themselves later disillusioned with a political reality that doesn't match the slogans they lived by,' explained al-Shami. As al-Sharaa's administration pushes ahead with normalization and international outreach, including controversial overtures to former foes, observers say the ability to manage backlash from former allies and militant hardliners will be key to preserving security and cohesion.
Asharq Al-Awsat
5 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Araghchi, the Bomb and the Iranian Train
The United States has no interest in resorting to the military solution to resolve the dispute with Iran over its nuclear program. The use of force in the Middle East revives memories of costly experiences. President Donald Trump himself does not believe that the military solution is viable, unless all other options to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear dream run out. Iran, in turn, says it has no such dream. However, despite its repeated denials, the nuclear file continues to return to the spotlight. The lack of trust between the US and Iran is not unusual. Both countries have traded direct and indirect blows over the past decades, deepening this crisis of trust. The current Iran always views the US or 'Great Satan' as the top danger. It is aware that the US is a major power that is capable of upending balances of power in most parts of the world. Meanwhile, the US views Iran as the main backer of terrorism in the Middle East and it has accused it of having a hand in every attempt to destabilize the region. Trump's return to the White House has enflamed the crisis with Iran. He is connected to two major events in Iran's recent history: Washington's withdrawal from the nuclear agreement and the killing of Qassem Soleimani. Trump has opened the door for negotiations with Iran, but with the constant reminder that it will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, even if this ultimately means resorting to military force to prevent it from doing so. The current nuclear crisis with Iran has entered a new phase in wake of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report that accuses Tehran of speeding up its rate of uranium enrichment. Trump's repeated statement that Tehran will not be allowed to acquire nuclear arms is accompanied by repeated signs from him that an agreement is possible with it, and soon. The US has no interest in sliding into a military confrontation with Iran. It also has no interest in Israel taking the reins in such a mission with unpredictable repercussions. In all likelihood, Iran, which has long avoided slipping into a direct confrontation with the US, will continue to walk the same path in avoiding such a costly clash. Moreover, Iran today is in no shape to become embroiled in such a test of force. The recent changes in the Middle East have not at all been in Iran's favor and they have denied it some of its most valuable cards. On this note, we have to wonder what Abbas Araghchi will feel when his plane approaches Beirut airport. Will he sense that Beirut has changed or that the region has changed, along with Iran's position in it? He knows that his mission these days is very difficult, if not impossible. The world is calling on Iran to reassure it, while he responds that it should reassure Iran instead. Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in recent months. Syria has hopped off and there is nothing that would lead anyone to believe that it would jump back on again. What changed in Syria was not just the name of its president, but an entire way in how it treats the Syrian people, its neighbors and the world. Damascus ousted the 'way of the resistance' that the Assad regime had long relied on. The US is no longer viewed as an enemy. Syria is now being desired and is in demand. Its advice and demands are also being heard. Syria no longer hosts the officers of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as part of the plan Qassem Soleimani spent years in drawing up, especially after he successfully persuaded Putin's Russia in saving the Assad regime from collapse. Syria no longer hosts the headquarters of Palestinian 'resistance' organizations and offers its leaders safe havens. These groups are no longer welcome in Syria, while Lebanon's Hezbollah is now viewed as an enemy. Lebanon has also changed. The naming of presidents is no longer in the hands of Hezbollah commanders. The current president of the republic was elected after vowing to achieve state monopoly over arms. The same can be said of the current prime minister. The current rule in Lebanon is based on the full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701. Any delay is full of dangers and risks wasting opportunities for reconstruction and reestablishing stability. Araghchi knows that the current nuclear crisis erupted at a very difficult time. The changes in Syria are comparable to the changes that took place in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Another Iraq and another Syria. Iran has not been able to make up such losses. Iraq did not hop off the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation and its ensuing wars, but it managed to remain outside of the storm and avoid any adventures. The Houthi missiles are not enough compensation for Iran's losses. One must pause at the situation in Gaza. The catastrophe there has not bounds and there are no limits to Israel's savagery. Hamas fought long and hard and paid hefty prices, but today, it has no other practical alternative than to seek shelter in Witkoff's proposal. Araghchi is aware of what happened to the Iranian train in wake of the Al-Aqsa operation. He knows that the countries of the region encourage building bridges with his own. Perhaps he even knows that accepting a lesser role for his country is much better than risking exposing it and its regime to a direct clash with the American military machine.
Asharq Al-Awsat
6 hours ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Russia, Ukraine Head to Istanbul for Fresh Peace Talks
Russian and Ukrainian officials will meet Monday in Istanbul to exchange their plans for how to end the three-year war, Europe's largest conflict since World War II, after Kyiv says it struck dozens of strategic bombers parked at airbases deep in Russia. Urged on by US President Donald Trump, Moscow and Kyiv have opened direct negotiations for the first time since the early weeks of Russia's invasion but have yet to make significant progress towards an elusive agreement, said AFP. Monday's talks come a day after Ukraine carried out one of its most brazen and successful attacks ever on Russian soil -- hitting dozens of strategic bombers parked at airbases thousands of kilometers behind the front line. At the first round of talks in Istanbul last month, they agreed a large-scale prisoner exchange and to swap notes on what their vision of a peace deal might look like. The second set of negotiations is scheduled to get underway at 1:00 pm (1000 GMT) at the Ciragan Palace in Istanbul, an Ottoman imperial house on the banks of the Bosphorus that is now a luxury five-star hotel. Russia says it will present a "memorandum" of its peace terms, having resisted pressure by Ukraine to send its demands in advance. Despite the flurry of diplomacy, the two sides remain far apart over a possible deal -- either for a truce or longer-term settlement. Outlining Kyiv's position ahead of the talks, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky refreshed his call for an immediate halt to the fighting. "First –- a full and unconditional ceasefire. Second –- the release of prisoners. Third -– the return of abducted children," he said Sunday in a post on social media. He also called for the sides to discuss a direct meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "The key issues can only be resolved by the leaders," Zelensky said. The Kremlin has repeatedly pushed back on that prospect, saying a Putin-Zelensky meeting could only happen after the negotiating delegations reach wider "agreements". Russia has questioned Zelensky's legitimacy throughout the war and repeatedly called for him to be toppled. Moscow says it wants to address the "root causes" of the conflict -- language typically used to refer to a mix of sweeping demands including limiting Ukraine's military, banning the country from joining NATO and massive territorial concessions. Kyiv and the West have rejected those calls and cast Russia's assault as nothing but an imperialist land grab. Tens of thousands have been killed since Russia invaded, with swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed and millions forced to flee their homes. War rages on Russia's top negotiator in Istanbul will be Vladimir Medinsky, an ideological Putin aide who led failed talks in 2022, has written school textbooks justifying the invasion and questioned Ukraine's right to exist. Ukraine's team will be led by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov, seen as a skilled and pragmatic negotiator, but who has been mired in domestic scandal over alleged abuse of power and a lack of transparency. "Diplomatic advisors" from Germany, France and Britain will be "on the ground... in close coordination with the Ukrainian negotiating team," a German government spokesperson said Sunday. Ukraine on Sunday said it had damaged some 40 strategic Russian bombers, worth $7 billion, in a major special operation after months of setbacks for Kyiv's military. Kyiv's security service said the plan, 18 months in the making, had involved smuggling drones into Russia which were then launched from near the airbases, thousands of kilometers away from the front lines. Russian troops have meanwhile been advancing on the ground, particularly in the northeastern Sumy region, where Putin ordered his forces to establish a "buffer zone" along the border. Ballistic strikes in the northeastern Kharkiv region on Monday injured at least six people, including a seven-year-old, and damaged a civilian business and a warehouse, Kharkiv Governor Oleg Synegubov said on Monday. Ahead of the talks, Russian officials have called for Ukraine to be cut off from Western military support and cede territory still controlled by its army. Ukraine has pushed Russia to agree a full, unconditional and immediate ceasefire -- saying a pause in the fighting is necessary to then discuss what a long-term settlement could look like. Kyiv has refused to formally give up the one-fifth of its territory controlled by Russia, though it has accepted that it may only be able to get some land back through diplomacy, not fighting. It also wants concrete Western-backed security guarantees -- like NATO protections or Western troops on the ground -- that have also been ruled out by Russia.
