Should Harvard enter into a deal with the Trump administration?
To Charles Kuck, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and an immigration lawyer, Harvard is in a strong position in court right now, so backing down isn't likely.
'I hope I'm not wrong, but my experience doing litigation for 36 years against the government is when they know they're going to lose, they settle,' he said.
But for Harvard junior Nuriel Vera-DeGraff, there are 'very few positive aspects' of Harvard making a deal with the federal government.
Vera-DeGraff fears that if Harvard makes a deal by backing down from defending its academic freedom, it allows the federal government to continue attacking higher education until it gets what it wants.
Read more: Judge rules Trump can't invoke national security powers to ban foreign Harvard students
The university has so far largely prevailed in court in lawsuits against the Trump administration. A federal judge granted two preliminary injunctions, allowing Harvard University's international students to continue attending school and enter the U.S. to study until the legality of the case is decided.
Harvard hasn't officially confirmed whether a deal is in the works. However, Harvard President Alan Garber privately told a group of around 60 international donors that the institution was in talks with the federal government, according to The Harvard Crimson.
Garber didn't expand upon the timeline or how the institution might settle with the White House. Instead, he focused on concerns about Harvard's community feeling uncomfortable speaking to one another across ideological boundaries or on controversial topics, the outlet said.
A Harvard spokesperson said the institution is continuing to fight in court and pointed to the federal judge siding with the university in the past two preliminary injunctions.
'Harvard will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars," the spokesperson said.
Read more: Harvard Kennedy's backup plan for foreign students: Study online, or in Canada
The deal follows a months-long battle between the university and the Trump administration.
In April, the Trump administration demanded an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring. If the university didn't comply, it risked losing $9 billion in funding, the federal government said.
The actions were taken in the name of antisemitism, as the Trump administration claimed Harvard failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza.
Harvard rejected the administration's demands and set the stage for a historic showdown.
The 'stakes are very high' both for higher education and the United States as Harvard considers cutting a deal with the Trump administration, according to Phil Hanlon, former Dartmouth University President.
'I think the Trump administration is likely to use whatever agreement it reaches with Harvard as a template for agreements with other universities, especially elite universities. And it's really important from the university's perspective that whatever agreement is reached, it allows universities to continue to be engines of innovation and prepare students to lead lives of leadership and impact. But I think the stakes are even higher for the nation,' Hanlon said.
If he were the president of Harvard, Hanlon said he would be looking for 'red lines' that the institution shouldn't cross — such as telling faculty what they can teach or what research to do.
Harvard student Vera-DeGraff said giving in to any of the initial demands from the Trump administration would be 'extremely dangerous.'
'I have a very hard time imagining the Trump administration agreeing to a deal that would be, I guess, 'mindbogglingly historic' in his words — which seems pretty positive from his perspective — that would not, again, compromise academic freedom in some way or free speech in some way," he said.
Vera-DeGraff isn't surprised by the prospect of a deal. He said he believes Harvard at least partially sides with the Trump administration, especially when it comes to suppressing pro-Palestine speech on campus, he said.
However, the damage of a deal isn't just theoretical, especially to scientists who have had their funding cut at Harvard.
The impact on research still remains in limbo even if a deal is to go through, according to John Quakenbush, Professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
'There is still so much collateral damage and it is unclear how things get restarted now that projects have disrupted,' he said.
'A lot of plates have been broken, some irreparably,' he said.
Harvard alumni, through Crimson Courage, whose mission is to stand up for academic freedom, sent an open letter to Harvard administrators on Monday morning calling for the institution to resist caving into the federal government.
They believed the university should live up to its motto of 'veritas,' which means 'truth' in Latin.
'We cannot stand for 'veritas' if we refuse to stand up for truth when the moment demands it or if we dilute our values because it is expedient,' said the community of Harvard alumni.
The Harvard alumni said that academic freedom 'cannot be negotiated away nor yield to political pressure and coercion.'
Read more: 'Devastating': 10 Harvard researchers detail 'essential' work set to be cut by Trump
In a separate letter to the Harvard administration, Jewish faculty, through Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff, a group of Boston-area-based Jewish faculty, called on Harvard to protect free expression, academic freedom and resist the 'weaponization' of antisemitism in the negotiation process.
The group is made up of 150 Jewish faculty at Harvard and 24 other Boston-area universities.
'Those negotiations are framed by the Trump administration's groundless allegations of institutionalized antisemitism. The accusations have been used to suppress academic freedom and create a climate of fear at Harvard and throughout the US, particularly among Arab and Muslim community members and those who support Palestinian rights,' the faculty wrote in an open letter to Harvard on Monday.
Since Harvard's two lawsuits against the Trump administration began, the university has garnered widespread support, calling into question, for some, why Harvard would want to cut a deal with the Trump administration right now.
Twelve thousand alumni and other individuals and groups expressed their support through legal documents known as amicus briefs, including two dozen universities, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Council on Education, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — also known as FIRE — and Columbia Alumni for Academic Freedom.
During graduation and alumni day, Harvard President Garber had to wait on stage to give his speeches because he was met with unrelenting applause.
At Columbia University's graduation, by contrast, students booed the president.
It was in part a response from the university acquiescing to an ultimatum from the federal government — either abide by a list of requirements laid out for them or jeopardize its 'continued financial relationship with the United States government.'
Read more: Trump admin threatens Columbia U. accreditation over Jewish student harassment
While Columbia agreed to implement a list of policy changes, the university later pledged — after Harvard's decision to push back — not to make any agreement with the federal government that would 'relinquish our independence and autonomy,' according to a message from the university's president.
Columbia's efforts to negotiate haven't 'done them any good' as they haven't been any less susceptible to attacks, according to Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and a former president at Mount Holyoke College.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Education threatened Columbia University's accreditation due to its response to campus antisemitism.
While that could happen to Harvard as well with a deal, Pasquerella said society 'cannot afford to say we're not going to listen to the other side.'
Harvard's president has been mindful of the impact of compromising academic freedom thus far and hopes the institution continues not to capitulate to the federal government's demands, Pasquerella said.
To Kuck, the power of the negotiation is more in Harvard's court because of the federal judge siding with Harvard on two preliminary injunctions.
A deal would also ultimately bypass mounting expenses for lawyers and associated costs with going to federal court, Kuck said.
Regardless of what happens: a deal or continued litigation, Kuck said the fight with Harvard accomplished its purpose — to paint elite institutions as 'outliers in American society.'
'They could fight and look like idiots, or they could negotiate and claim victory, which is what they'll probably do,' he said.
'The MAGA crowd will now move on to the next thing. All they'll remember in this episode, even though Harvard gets what they want, is Trump stood up to Harvard,' Kuck said.
Harvard subpoenaed in Ivy League tuition price-fixing investigation
Lawsuit: MIT professor harassed Israeli researcher, Jewish student as president stood by
Harvard Kennedy's backup plan for foreign students: Study online, or in Canada
Why a database of bug genes could be one of Trump's most devastating cuts at Harvard
Data breach affecting over 75,000 people at UMass leads to lawsuit
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American
When President Donald Trump first declared a crime emergency in the nation's capital and sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to patrol its streets, this district resident had a hard time taking it too seriously. The initial images of bored Drug Enforcement Administration agents strolling past perplexed joggers on the National Mall were more clownish than carceral. Local street resistance to the occupation was limited to a drunk guy throwing a sandwich at a federal agent. But inevitably, as this operation has dragged on, things have taken a darker turn. The sandwich-thrower was overcharged and rearrested in a needless, publicized show of force. Masked federal agents have set up an unconstitutional checkpoint, violently arrested at least one delivery driver, and filmed themselves tearing down a banner protesting their presence in the city. Each day, more and more National Guard members pour into the capital. The conversation about Trump's declared crime emergency has understandably, albeit unhelpfully, provoked a lot of discourse about how safe D.C. is, whether a federalized local police department will make it safer, whether federal agents are being deployed in the right places and going after the right crimes, and on and on. This incessant crime conversation has distracted from just how un-American Trump's show of force in the nation's capital is. Uniformed troops and masked federal agents doing routine law enforcement at the command of the president is just not how we do things in the United States. The entire point of the U.S. Constitution is to prevent the federal government from becoming a despotism, and one of the primary ways it does this is by limiting how many men with guns it has at its disposal. This is why the Constitution places strict constraints on maintaining a standing army. It's why there are only three crimes mentioned in the Constitution, none of which would plausibly require federal agents to patrol U Street. It's why questions of what to criminalize and who to prosecute were largely left up to the states. The Third Amendment is mostly treated as an anachronistic joke today. In fact, it is a load-bearing part of the Constitution that makes clear that the military and the police are different things and that Americans should not have to tolerate the presence of armed agents of the states as a routine part of daily life. Obviously we've deviated considerably from this ideal since the founding generation. The federal criminal code is now extensive. The feds' wars on drugs, terror, and immigration have grown the number of militarized federal agents doing law enforcement activities. Federal money has subsidized a similar trend of militarization of state and local police forces. Reason has been decrying this trend for decades. In his book Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko writes about how the trend of increased police militarization has eroded the "Symbolic Third Amendment" and the free society it protects. It's darkly ironic then that, after decades of politicians of both parties in D.C. gifting the federal government vast powers to police the rest of the country, a militarized federal police force is now being deployed on the streets of America's capital against its residents. This is why arguments about whether federal agents could be more effectively deployed in less visible, higher crime areas of the city are completely beside the point. The federal government acting as a beat cop is inimical to our constitutional design, regardless of how effective its efforts are. That D.C. is a federal district might seem to complicate this point. In fact, it reinforces it. Despite being a constitutionally peculiar special district, a lot of effort has been put into giving D.C. a local police force that does not practically function as an arm of the federal government. Even in the seat of federal power, it's understood that a force of federal agents policing everyday life is not something ordinary citizens should have to put up with. That Trump has the power to federalize the D.C. police or deploy the D.C. National Guard doesn't stop his actions from being authoritarian and offensive to the spirit of the Constitution, even if it doesn't violate the letter of it. It's also cold comfort that Trump's declared crime emergency is clearly mostly a performative act to rile up the libs and not a serious effort at combating crime. While the president is staging the performance, it's disconcerting that he's opted to cast himself as the villain in the play. Moreover, the longer federal agents are deployed on D.C. streets, the greater the odds that more serious abuses do happen. It's true that D.C. today is not as locked down as it has been in recent years. The police-enforced curfews during the George Floyd protests or the security cordons that sprang up after the January 6 riots were a lot more visible and heavy-handed. Excessive as those police actions were (particularly the latter), they were at least being done as an emergency response to widespread breakdowns in public order. Trump is rolling out the feds in D.C. to do routine law enforcement. That's un-American. The post Trump's D.C. Goon Squads Are Un-American appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats press DHS for ‘Alligator Alcatraz' information
Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for more information about how the Trump administration teamed up with the state of Florida to create a controversial detention facility for migrants in the middle of the Everglades. 'Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, [DHS] has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health and violate federal law,' House and Senate Democrats wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem dated Wednesday. The detention facility, dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' opened in early July to house arrested migrants awaiting deportation. It was created through a state and federal partnership, with Florida officials leading oversight and construction, with DHS footing the bill. President Trump toured the facility when it opened, along with Noem. A federal judge last week temporarily halted expansion of the site after tribal and environmental groups filed a lawsuit over potential damage to wetlands. Located just south of Miami, Alligator Alcatraz quickly raised alarms about conditions for detainees in the hot, humid climate. Some whistleblowers have described worm-infested food, plumbing problems and other issues since its opening. 'The Everglades site was selected precisely because of its remote location and harsh surroundings, which Florida officials reportedly view as 'an ideal location to house and transport migrants,'' the Democrats wrote in their letter Wednesday. 'We ask that DHS promptly provide critical information for the American public to better understand this detention plan.' The letter was signed by more than five dozen members of Congress, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.). It requested that DHS respond to several questions by September 3.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘South Park' mocks Trump's DC takeover in upcoming episode
An upcoming episode of 'South Park' is set to make fun of President Trump's efforts to crack down on crime in Washington, D.C. A teaser for the Wednesday evening episode, released on social media and YouTube, shows the iconic character 'Towlie' arriving in Washington, D.C. As 'Towlie' gets off a bus arriving in the district, a tank rolls by in front of the White House while the character says, 'This seems like the perfect place for a towel.' Trump has sparked widespread backlash with his takeover of the local police force and mobilization of National Guard troops to help fight crime in D.C. 'South Park' has used the first several episodes of its new season to mock Trump and his allies, poking fun at the administration's deportation efforts as well as controversy relating to the Jeffery Epstein files. The show has targeted media conglomerate Paramount, the parent company of Comedy Central which earlier this year awarded the show's creators a new lucrative contract for rights to broadcast the animated satire program.
