logo
Trump Officials Press Case Against Harvard, and Add a New Investigation

Trump Officials Press Case Against Harvard, and Add a New Investigation

New York Times2 days ago
The White House stepped up pressure against Harvard Friday, adding a new investigation into the university's patents and renewing a host of claims that the university is unfit to host international students.
The two sides have been working to resolve their differences in recent weeks, but a court motion filed by the government on Friday in a dispute over international students suggested there is still deep acrimony. The motion accuses Harvard of failure to control crime, and claims that Harvard's leadership has 'shown itself to be incapable of properly hosting, monitoring, disciplining, and reporting on its foreign student arguing.'
On the same day, Commerce Secretary Howard W. Lutnick sent a letter to Alan M. Garber, Harvard's president, claiming that the university had not lived up to its obligations surrounding federally funded patents, which are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the letter, the agency will begin a comprehensive review of Harvard's compliance with federal law.
In the court case, the Justice Department was asking a judge to throw out one of two pending lawsuits filed by Harvard against the administration, this one involving the right of the nation's oldest university's right to host international students.
Earlier in the year, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, moved to end Harvard's right to host the students. Harvard sued. When Judge Allison Burroughs of federal court in Boston temporarily blocked the administration action, the White House countered in June by issuing a proclamation blocking international students that invoked a different provision of law.
Judge Burroughs, who has expressed skepticism of the Trump administration's crusade against Harvard from the bench and also in written orders, also blocked that effort, issuing a preliminary injunction.
On Friday, the government moved to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. (The government's motion on Friday applied only to the case involving international students. It has no effect on the university's lawsuit against the administration about research funding cuts, a case that focuses heavily on constitutional and procedural concerns.)
The government's effort could have disrupted the lives of about 5,000 international students attending Harvard last spring, another 2,000 recent graduates, as well as a new cohort of students who plan to arrive this fall.
'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The university has accused the government of retaliating against it for its refusal to bend to the White House's efforts to control the university's 'governance, curriculum and the ideology of faculty and students.'
In its filing Friday, the administration denied that contention. Instead, it listed a number of accusations it has made in previous filings and statements about the school, including that violent crime has increased on campus.
Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the administration's claims, but the university's student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, has reported that the campus police responded to nearly twice as many crimes on campus in 2023 as in 2021, mostly over reports of stolen electric bikes and scooters.
There was no evidence that international students were involved in the crimes.
In a separate move on Friday, the administration added to its pressure campaign against Harvard when the Commerce Department said it would investigate whether the university was complying with federal laws and regulations around intellectual property that emerge from government-backed research.
The investigation is expected to examine whether Harvard complied with myriad requirements related to how the university procures and maintains patents for its ideas and research.
In his letter to Dr. Garber, Mr. Lutnick said that his department 'places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements from the government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard.' But, Mr. Lutnick warned, Harvard was also required to follow rules designed to maximize 'the benefits to the American public.'
Mr. Lutnick did not include any evidence showing that Harvard, whose researchers generally secure scores of patents each year, had violated the law, but he said that the Commerce Department thought that the university had 'failed to live up to its obligations to the American taxpayer.'
Patents can be extraordinarily lucrative for research universities, with their collective values climbing far into the millions of dollars. But if a university does not follow an array of regulatory requirements, the government can essentially dilute or strip a school of its financial stake.
Mr. Lutnick said the government was 'initiating' that process. His department asked Harvard to provide a range of records to the government by Sept. 5.
In a statement on Friday, Harvard blasted the Commerce Department's letter as 'unprecedented' and 'yet another retaliatory effort targeting Harvard for defending its rights and freedom.'
'Technologies and patents developed at Harvard are lifesaving and industry-redefining,' the university said, adding that it was 'fully committed' to complying with federal law.
Michael C. Bender contributed reporting.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies
Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies

New York Post

time18 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Goodbye to DEI, crushed by the weight of its own hypocrisies

President Donald Trump's executive orders banning diversity, equity and inclusion-related racial and gender preferencing have ostensibly doomed the DEI industry. But DEI was already on its last legs. Half of all Americans no longer approve of racial, ethnic or gender preferences. Advertisement DEI had enjoyed a surge following the death of George Floyd and the subsequent 120 days of nonstop rioting, arson, assaults, killings and attacks on law enforcement during the summer of 2020. In those chaotic years, DEI was seen as the answer to racial tensions. DEI had insidiously replaced the old notion of affirmative action — a 1960s-era government remedy for historical prejudices against black Americans, from the legacy of slavery to Jim Crow segregation. But during the Obama era, 'diversity' superseded affirmative action by offering preferences to many groups well beyond black Americans. Advertisement Quite abruptly, Americans began talking in Marxist binaries. On one side were the supposed 65 to 70% white majority 'oppressors' and 'victimizers' — often stereotyped as exuding 'white privilege,' 'white supremacy' or even 'white rage.' They were juxtaposed to the 30 to 35% of 'diverse' Americans, the so-called 'oppressed' and 'victimized.' Advertisement Yet almost immediately, contradictions and hypocrisies undermined DEI. First, how does one define 'diverse' in an increasingly multiracial, intermarried, assimilated and integrated society? DNA badges? The old one-drop rule of the antebellum South? Superficial appearance? To establish racial or ethnic proof of being one-sixteenth, one-fourth, or one-half 'non-white,' employers, corporations and universities would have to become racially obsessed genealogists. Advertisement Yet refusing to become racial auditors also would allow racial and ethnic fraudsters — like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the would-be mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani — to go unchecked. Warren falsely claimed Native American heritage to leverage a Harvard professorship. Mamdani, an immigrant son of wealthy Indian immigrants from Uganda, tried to game his way into college by claiming he was African American. Second, in 21st-century America, class became increasingly divergent from race. Mamdani, who promises to tax 'affluent' and 'whiter' neighborhoods at higher rates, is himself the child of Indian immigrants, the most affluent ethnic group in America. Why would the children of Barack Obama, Joy Reid or LeBron James need any special preferences, given the multimillionaire status of their parents? In other words, one's superficial appearance no longer necessarily determines one's income or wealth, nor defines 'privilege' or lack thereof. Third, DEI is often tied to questions of 'reparations.' The current white majority supposedly owes other particular groups financial or entitlement compensation for the sins of the past. Advertisement Yet in today's multiracial and multiethnic society, in which over 50 million residents were not born in the United States and many have only recently arrived, what are the particular historical or past grievances that would earn anyone special treatment? What injustices can recent arrivals from southern Mexico, South Korea or Chad claim, knowing little about, and experiencing no firsthand bias from, Americans, the United States, or its history? Is the DEI logic that when a Guatemalan steps one foot across the southern border, she is suddenly classified as a victim of white oppression and therefore entitled to preferences in hiring or employment? Fourth, does the word 'minority' still carry any currency? Advertisement In today's California, the demography breaks down as 40% Latino, 34% white, 16% Asian American or Pacific Islander, 6% black, and 3% Other — with no significant majority and fewer whites than the Latino 'minority.' Are Latinos the new de facto 'majority' and 'whites' just one of the four other 'minorities?' Do the other minorities, then, have grievances against Latinos, given that they are the dominant population in the state? Fifth, when does DEI 'proportional representation' apply, and when does it not? Are whites 'overrepresented' among the nation's university faculties, reportedly 75% white, when they comprise only about 70% of the population? Advertisement Or, are whites 'underrepresented' as college students, making up just 55% of them, and thus in need of DEI action to bump up their numbers? Black athletes are vastly overrepresented in lucrative and prestigious professional sports. To correct such asymmetries, should Asians and Hispanics be given mandated quotas for quarterback or point-guard positions to ensure proper athletic 'diversity, equity and inclusion'? Sixth, DEI determines good and bad prejudices, as well as correct and incorrect biases. 'Affinity' segregationist graduations — black, Hispanic, Asian and gay — are considered 'affirming'. Advertisement But would a similar affinity graduation ceremony for European-Americans or Jews be considered 'racist'? Is a Latino-themed, de facto segregated house on a California campus considered 'enlightened,' while a European-American dorm would be condemned as incendiary? In truth, DEI long ago became corrupt, falling apart under the weight of its own paradoxes and hypocrisies. It is a perniciously divisive idea — unable to define who qualifies for preference or why, who is overrepresented or not, or when bias is acceptable or unjust. And it is past time that it goes away. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store