logo
Some Harvard doctors worry Trump's anti-DEI push will harm health care

Some Harvard doctors worry Trump's anti-DEI push will harm health care

Boston Globe05-04-2025

Dr. Bruce Fischl, a professor of radiology at Harvard Medical School who runs a neuroimaging lab at MGH, fears the ultimatum might imperil programs designed to help young students from disadvantaged backgrounds enter the biomedical field. He's seen the power of such initiatives, citing one local lab's internship program for high school and undergraduate students in which they get to observe and participate in brain research on Alzheimer's and other diseases.
Advertisement
The goal of the internship program, he said, is to 'demystify biomedical research' and provide opportunities to young people who have limited opportunities to pursue science careers. More than half of the roughly 50 students who have participated are children of first-generation immigrant families. One of the students was recently hired as a research associate in the lab.
Advertisement
'The program has been freaking amazing,' Fischl said. 'It gives young people an opportunity to be seen and heard and flourish in an environment that they wouldn't have access to otherwise. It's not an alternative to meritocracy, it's a way to broaden the pool of people who have access to be considered for meritocracy.'
In its
The demands also included that Harvard crack down on programs and departments that stoke antisemitism and report on disciplinary actions taken against people who violated antisemitism rules since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel.
The letter from the Trump administration's antisemitism task force accused Harvard of failing to protect students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment. The administration had said on Monday that it was reviewing $9 billion in federal grants and contracts destined for the university and its affiliated institutions, including such renowned hospitals as MGH, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston Children's Hospital, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
Several Jewish
doctors who teach at Harvard Medical School said that meeting the demand by the administration's antisemitism task force could actually fuel hatred of Jews and undermine merit-based programs while imperiling research at Harvard's hospitals.
Advertisement
'The tragedy of all this is that the professed rationale for these demands is to reduce antisemitism, and this will absolutely have the opposite effect,' said a Jewish physician and researcher at Brigham, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. '[Administration officials] are demanding that Harvard take a wide range of actions that will be very unpopular.'
Rachel Petherbridge, a doctoral student in systems biology at Harvard Medical School, exclaimed 'damn, damn, damn!' on Friday as she read through the list of demands in
Petherbridge has spent much of the past five years studying maternal health, including
In June 2020, a Black Lives Matter sign was displayed on the window of a business in Boston.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
'The Trump administration wants us to be color blind,' Petherbridge said. 'But how far does that go when we are considering differences between people in our research and trying to be careful and conscientious? . . . It's Kafkaesque. Because no one knows what the crime is and what the rules are, then everyone is afraid.'
In 2023, Harvard received about 10 percent of its revenue from federal grants and contracts, and its affiliated hospitals rank among the nation's top hospital recipients of federal health research grants. Last year, two hospitals, MGH and Brigham, together
Advertisement
A spokesperson for Beth Israel Lahey Health declined to comment on the demands but said 'research and innovation are at the center of our mission as an academic health system, and federal funding is critical in supporting the work of our researchers. Any changes to federal research funding will have a significant impact on our ability to recruit talented clinicians.'
Spokespersons for Mass General Brigham, Dana-Farber, and Children's declined to comment.
The crackdown on diversity programs drew particularly fierce criticism from several physicians and researchers.
Scott Delaney, a research scientist in environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, said he is concerned that the Trump administration is using diversity programs as a pretext for gutting university funding and undermining scientific research.
'DEI is a slur that they use for anything they don't like — and generally, that's research that is
not specifically tailored to straight, white men,' he said.
He said the targets of the administration's review of Harvard likely will widen over time, much as they have with the review of NIH research grants. At first, the NIH
'It feels a little bit like we're standing on a train track and we can see the train coming,' Delaney said.
One veteran physician-scientist at MGH said he hopes Harvard refuses to bow to the ultimatum from the Trump administration. But in a telling sign of the fear sweeping the school and other Ivy League universities, the doctor insisted on anonymity.
Advertisement
'This is absolute bullying, and capitulating to a bully never works out,' he said of President Trump. 'I hope that not only Harvard but the combined academic enterprise gets a backbone and resists as best as they possibly can. This autocratic approach is what leads to fascism.'
Tiana Woodard of the Globe staff contributed reporting.
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director

UPI

time3 minutes ago

  • UPI

In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director

June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."

How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history
How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history

Associated Press

time3 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

How unusual is it for the National Guard to come to LA? Here's what to know about the city's history

President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests is the latest in a long history of U.S. elected officials sending troops in hopes of thwarting unrest connected to civil rights protests. National Guard troops are typically deployed for a variety of emergencies and natural disasters with the permission of governors in responding states, but Trump, a Republican, sent about 1,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles despite the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, both Democrats. Confrontations began Friday when dozens of protesters gathered outside a federal detention center demanding the release of more than 40 people arrested by federal immigration authorities across Los Angeles, as part of Trump's mass deportation campaign. Trump said that federalizing the troops on Saturday was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California. Newsom said Trump's recent decision was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Some of the previous National Guard deployments have preserved peace amid violent crackdowns from local law enforcement or threats from vigilantes, but sometimes they have intensified tensions among people who were protesting for civil rights or racial equality. On rare occasion, presidents have invoked an 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act, which is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. Other times they relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances, which is what Trump did on Saturday. Here is a look at some of the most notable deployments: George Floyd protests in Los Angeles in 2020 Almost five years ago, Newsom deployed approximately 8,000 National Guard troops to quell protests over racial injustice inspired by the death of George Floyd in Minnesota. Well over half of the troops deployed in California were sent to Los Angeles County, where police arrested more than 3,000 people. City officials at the time, including then-Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, supported Newsom's decision. Rodney King protests in 1992 Some have compared Trump's decision on Saturday to George H.W. Bush's use of the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992, after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. In just six days the protests became one of the deadliest race riots in American history, with 63 people dying, nine of whom were killed by police. Syreeta Danley, a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings. Danley said that at the time it seemed like law enforcement cared more about property damage affecting wealthier neighborhoods than the misconduct that precipitated the unrest. She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police 'had the green light to continue brutalizing people.' The National Guard can enforce curfews like they did in 1992, but that won't stop people from showing up to protest, Danley said. 'I have lived long enough to know that people will push back, and I'm here for it,' Danley said. Watts protests in 1965 There were deadly protests in the Watts neighborhood of Los Angeles in 1965 in response to pent-up anger over an abusive police force and lack of resources for the community. Over 30 people were killed — two-thirds of whom were shot by police or National Guard troops. Many say the neighborhood has never fully recovered from fires that leveled hundreds of buildings. Integration protests in the 1950-1960s In 1956, the governor of Tennessee called the state's troops to help enforce integration in Clinton, Tennessee, after white supremacists violently resisted federal orders to desegregate. President Dwight Eisenhower called the Arkansas National Guard and the 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army in 1957 to escort nine Black students as they integrated a previously white-only school. A few years later, the Maryland National Guard remained in the small town of Cambridge for two years after Maryland's Democratic Gov. J Millard Tawes in 1963 called in troops to mediate violent clashes between white mobs and Black protesters demanding desegregation. Selma, Alabama, voting rights protest in 1965 National Guard troops played a pivotal role in the march often credited with pressuring the passage of Voting Rights Act of 1965, when nonviolent protesters — including the late congressman John Lewis — calling for the right to vote were brutally assaulted by Alabama State Troopers in Selma, Alabama, in 1965. Two weeks later, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson sent National Guard troops to escort thousands of protesters along the 50-mile (81-kilometer) march to the state Capitol. Johnson's decision was at odds with then-Gov. George Wallace who staunchly supported segregation. ___ Riddle is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

Time​ Magazine

time6 minutes ago

  • Time​ Magazine

Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?

President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare— and controversial —exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.'

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