Culture War on Harvard Spells Disaster for America's AI Future
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The battle between the White House and Harvard University over a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze and demands to ban international students is no isolated attack. It's part of a broader war on liberal higher education—and a harbinger of a wider global struggle.
A federal court ruling may have temporarily blocked the student ban, but the message is clear: these attacks are ideological, deliberate, and dangerous.
The 24 universities backing Harvard's lawsuit know this is bigger than campus politics. Undermining academia weakens one of the last independent institutions shaping AI's impact on society.
By weakening the institutions that embed human knowledge and ethical reasoning into AI, we risk creating a vacuum where technological power advances without meaningful checks, shaped by those with the fastest resources, not necessarily the best intentions.
The language used in discussions about ethical AI—terms like "procedural justice," "informed consent," and "structural bias"—originates not from engineering labs, but from the humanities and social sciences. In the 1970s, philosopher Tom Beauchamp helped author the Belmont Report, the basis for modern medical ethics. Legal scholar Alan Westin's work at Columbia shaped the 1974 Federal Privacy Act and the very notion that individuals should control their own data.
This intellectual infrastructure now underpins the world's most important AI governance frameworks. Liberal arts scholars helped shape the EU's Trustworthy AI initiative and the OECD's 2019 AI Principles—global standards for rule of law, transparency, and accountability. U.S. universities have briefed lawmakers, scored AI companies on ethics, and championed democratized access to datasets through the bipartisan CREATE AI Act.
But American universities face an onslaught. Since his inauguration, Trump has banned international students, slashed humanities and human rights programs, and frozen more than $5 billion in federal funding to leading universities like Harvard.
These policies are driving us into a future shaped by those who move fastest and break the most.
Left to their own devices, private AI companies give lip service to ethical safeguards, but tend not to implement them. And several, like Google, Meta, and Amazon, are covertly lobbying against government regulation.
Harvard banners hang in front of Widener Library during the 374th Harvard Commencement in Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025.
Harvard banners hang in front of Widener Library during the 374th Harvard Commencement in Harvard Yard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025.
Rick Friedman / AFP/Getty Images
This is already creating real-world harm. Facial recognition software routinely discriminates against women and people of color. Denmark's AI-powered welfare system discriminates against the most vulnerable. In Florida, a 14-year-old boy died by suicide after bonding with a chatbot that reportedly included sexual content.
The risks compound when AI intersects with disinformation, militarization, or ideological extremism. Around the world, state and non-state actors are exploring how AI can be harnessed for influence and control, sometimes beyond public scrutiny. The Muslim World League (MWL) has also warned that groups like ISIS are using AI to recruit a new generation of terrorists. Just last month, the FBI warned of scammers using AI-generated voice clones to impersonate senior U.S. officials.
What's needed is a broader, more inclusive AI ecosystem—one that fuses technical knowledge with ethical reasoning, diverse cultural voices, and global cooperation.
Such models already exist. The Vatican's Rome Call for AI Ethics unites tech leaders and faith groups around shared values. In Latin America and Africa, grassroots coalitions like the Mozilla Foundation have helped embed community voices into national AI strategies.
For instance, MWL Secretary-General Mohammad Al-Issa recently signed a landmark long-term memorandum of understanding with the president of Duke University, aimed at strengthening interfaith academic cooperation around shared global challenges. During the visit, Al-Issa also delivered a keynote speech on education, warning of the risks posed by extremists exploiting AI. Drawing on his work confronting digital radicalization by groups like ISIS, he has emerged as one of the few global religious figures urging faith leaders to be directly involved in shaping the ethical development of AI.
The United States has long been a global AI leader because it draws on diverse intellectual and cultural resources. But that edge is fading. China has tripled its universities since 1998 and poured billions into state-led AI research. The EU's newly passed AI Act is already reshaping the global regulatory landscape.
The world needs not just engineers, but ethicists; not just coders, but critics. The tech industry may have the tools to build AI, but it is academia that holds the moral compass to guide it.
If America continues undermining its universities, it won't just lose the tech race. It will forfeit its ability to lead the future of AI.
Professor Yu Xiong is Associate Vice President at the University of Surrey and founder of the Surrey Academy for Blockchain and Metaverse Applications. He chaired the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Metaverse and Web 3.0 advisory board.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
43 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Full List of States Suing Trump Administration for Immigration
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeking to block the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal crime victim funds from states that do not comply with the Trump administration's immigration enforcement measures. The suit challenges Justice Department conditions that would cut off funding to states or subgrantees that decline to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, deny U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers access to facilities, or fail to provide advance notice of release dates for individuals who may be wanted by ICE because of their immigration status. As of Monday afternoon, Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin had joined the lawsuit. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Bill Student Loan Changes Spur New College-Goers to Reconsider Plans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Since President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, new federal loan limits are set to go into effect. The law also issued the elimination of certain repayment options and removal of Grad PLUS loans, prompting many college students to rethink whether and how they would finish their degrees, according to a new U.S. News survey. Why It Matters The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set new annual and lifetime borrowing limits for graduate and professional students that take effect for new loans beginning July 1 next year. The law also reduces the number of available federal repayment plans for some borrowers, creating immediate uncertainty for those planning graduate or professional degrees. Due to the changes, millions of current and prospective students might face higher out-of-pocket costs or reduced repayment flexibility, and experts say those shifts could alter enrollment, degree choices and reliance on private credit for education financing. Harvard graduates listen attentively to speakers during the commencement ceremony in Harvard Yard on May 29, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard graduates listen attentively to speakers during the commencement ceremony in Harvard Yard on May 29, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Libby O'Neill/Getty Images What To Know The U.S. News survey of 1,190 college students found 61 percent of students said they would be personally impacted by the law, and 35 percent said they were considering cutting back on schooling. Roughly 32 percent were considering pursuing a different degree, and 38 percent said they were considering using private student loans to fill funding gaps. "On social media, a lot of students feel like they've been sold a lie. Just a few years ago, coding was pitched as the next big career track. Now, many coders are already being replaced by AI, ironically by the very technology they built," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "That's created real fear about pouring money and years into degrees that may not hold value." The survey also reported that student stress about paying for college increased after the law, with the share saying they felt "extremely" stressed rising from 24 percent to 31 percent. The majority of college students also said they don't support any of the law's changes, at 51 percent. The changes that gained the highest approvals were the borrowing caps or the elimination of certain income-driven repayment plans, at just around 20 percent. The exact ways college students will be impacted by the GOP law vary. In addition to around a third choosing to cut back on schooling or pursue a different degree, another 31 percent said they would consider going abroad to finish school, while 26 percent were thinking about joining the military to help pay for their college. "The American Dream has always been the freedom and opportunity to attain a better life, and there is no better path up the socioeconomic ladder than higher education," Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek. "This law hurts student loan borrowers, which disproportionately hurts middle- and lower-income families, the same groups who need it the most." The One Big Beautiful Bill Act introduced various changes to the federal student loan borrower system, including annual and lifetime caps on federal borrowing for graduate and professional students and the elimination of the Grad PLUS program for future borrowers. The caps would limit graduate borrowing to $20,500 per year with a $100,000 lifetime cap, and professional programs such as medical or law school would face annual caps of $50,000 and a $200,000 lifetime cap for loans taken after July 1, 2026. "That means lower-income students will likely be priced out or pushed toward private loans that carry higher interest rates. Over time, that could widen the gap in access—especially for minorities trying to enter fields like medicine," Thompson said. "The government's hope is that by removing subsidies, tuition costs will eventually fall. But whether that actually happens remains to be seen." Newsweek reached out to the Department of Education for comment via email. What People Are Saying Drew Powers, the founder of Illinois-based Powers Financial Group, told Newsweek: "This law essentially forces student and parent borrowers out of the federal student loan system and into the laps of the banks, which have proven time and again they are not going to be friendly to borrowers. The mere existence of federal loans forced the banks to offer more competitive interest rates in return for the lack of protections on the federal loan side. Once borrowers have maxed out their federal loans under the new law, the banks will not have any incentive to offer any friendly terms." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The changes coming to student loan distribution and repayment are significant, with the pathway to less expensive monthly payments and loan forgiveness becoming a more difficult one, if not impossible for students who are already in certain income brackets. "Changes to loan distribution in 2026 could also make it more challenging to secure federally backed student loans for certain majors that fail to meet the new percentage income standards if those rules are strictly enforced. Combine all those new additions with currently high interest rates on new loans, and it's easy to see why students are cautious on their academic road ahead." What Happens Next The wide range of changes enacted by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could mean falling enrollment at universities as more students opt for community colleges, Thompson said. "If tuition at four-year schools doesn't drop, demand for community colleges may push their prices up too," Thompson said. "If that shift plays out, the result could be a wider gap in white-collar careers, with lower-income students getting pushed more toward trades."
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Sherrod Brown's Chances of Flipping GOP Seat in Ohio as He Enters Race
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown launched a comeback campaign on Monday as polls suggest Republican Ohio Senator Jon Husted has an early lead. Tyson Shepard, Husted's communications director, wrote in a statement that Husted offers "Ohio's values and solutions to fix a broken Washington." Newsweek reached out to Brown's campaign for comment via email. Why It Matters Brown lost last year's Senate race to Republican Bernie Moreno, but Democrats are hopeful a more favorable national environment could make the race competitive. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterms, but Ohio has become increasingly conservative over the past decade and backed President Donald Trump by double digits last November. Democrats will need to win double-digit Trump seats to win control of the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 majority. Democrats view Maine, which voted for Vice President Kamala Harris by about 7 points, and North Carolina, which voted for Trump by about 3 points, as flip opportunities. But no other GOP-held seats in Harris-won or single-digit Trump states are up for grabs, meaning Democrats have to target more conservative states like Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Texas. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown speaks during a press conference in Washington on April 18, 2023. Former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown speaks during a press conference in Washington on April 18, To Know Brown, who served in the Senate from 2007 to 2025, made official his run on Monday, saying in a video released by his campaign that he didn't plan to run for office again after his defeat last November. "But when I see what's going on, I know I can do something about it for Ohio," he said. The latest poll from Bowling Green State University showed Husted with a narrow lead over Brown but still pointed to a competitive race. It found that 49 percent of respondents preferred Husted, while 46 percent said they would vote for Brown in 2026. Five percent leaned toward other candidates. It surveyed 800 registered voters from April 18-24 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.08 percentage points. It found that 43 percent of respondents viewed Brown favorably, while 41 percent viewed him unfavorably. Meanwhile, 25 percent viewed Husted favorably and 28 percent viewed him unfavorably, the poll found. The poll from February found Husted with a larger lead—47 percent to 41 percent, with 12 percent undecided. It surveyed 800 registered voters from February 14-21 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. No other polls of the race have been made public. Early betting odds also favor Husted. Kalshi's market for the Ohio Senate race gave Republicans a 74 percent chance of victory and Democrats only a 26 percent chance. Brown lost by about 3.6 points to Moreno last November, while Trump won by about 11.2 points over Harris in the state. What People Are Saying Tyson Shepard, Husted's communications director, in a statement: "Sherrod Brown's recent announcement means Ohioans will face a clear choice in 2026. For 30 years, he has imposed Washington's problems on Ohio, pushing radical liberal policies that have left a lasting burden on the next generation. Jon Husted offers the opposite approach, applying Ohio's values and solutions to fix a broken Washington. The challenges our nation faces are the same ones Husted has helped our state confront and overcome, championing the values he learned growing up in northwest Ohio: hard work, personal responsibility, family, faith, freedom and patriotism." Former Senator Sherrod Brown, on X: "Every day, I hear from Ohioans who know the system's rigged. Washington's raising prices and cutting health care to benefit wealthy donors and corporate special interest while workers foot the bill. I can't just stay on the sidelines if I can do something about it for Ohio." What Happens Next The general election is set for November 3, 2026. The Cook Political Report shifted the race to Lean Republican from Likely Republican following Brown's announcement. Sabato's Crystal Ball also classifies the race as Leans Republican.
