Excruciating moment Harvard president is confronted with evidence of overwhelming liberal bias among professors
The President of Harvard University was left visibly uncomfortable after being confronted with the vast number of his staff who are liberal.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal's editor in chief Emma Tucker, Alan Garber was asked about findings that said the faculty at the school was largely liberal.
Tucker cited a 2023 survey by The Harvard Crimson that found 77 percent of the faculty was liberal in her questioning.
In response, he said: 'One thing I can tell you is it's nothing deliberate about our hiring policies or our tenure policies.
'I think there are certain fields with people with more liberal or left-wing points of view feel more welcome.
'It may be that we don't have as many conservatives as we should have. Part of it also may be that people don't feel comfortable speaking out when they disagree.'
Garber also contended that the school has 'had some real problems that we should address'.
He said that those included 'perceived lack of ideological diversity' among staff and students.
It is the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump Administration and the Ivy League school, with officials saying that they would now be cutting grants.
Trump has been critical of universities that allowed pro-Palestinian demonstrations to run amok.
Administration officials have also taken issue with what they consider to be lack of diversity - with too few conservatives on staff.
A Education Department official said on Monday that the school would not be eligible for new grants.
Research grants would be the ones impacted - not federal student aid, which funnels through universities before providing students with financial relief.
Trump previously froze $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard and said he's looking into stripping the Ivy of its tax-exempt status.
Harvard has refused to meet a series of demands issued by the administration, pushing back on the requests. Garber has previously said he won't bend to the government.
The university sued last month to overturn the funding freeze, pushing back against the government's 'sweeping and intrusive demands.'
The demands include that Harvard make broad government leadership changes, change its admissions policy and audit its faculty and student body.
Harvard´s lawsuit said the funding freeze violated the school´s First Amendment rights and the statutory provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has an endowment of $53 billion, the largest in the country.
Across the university, federal money accounted for 10.5% of revenue in 2023, not counting financial aid such as Pell grants and student loans.
That accounts for more than half the $109 billion spent on research at universities, with most of the rest coming from college endowments, state and local governments and nonprofits.
Others being pushed to make changes include Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University, all of who have had their funds cut.
As the administration continues to wage its war against the school, Kristi Noem also said last month that the school would lost its ability to enroll foreign students should it fail to comply with the demands.
Noem also announced the termination of two DHS grants totaling over $2.7 million to Harvard.
The former governor of South Dakota wrote a letter to Harvard demanding records on what she called the 'illegal and violent activities' of Harvard's foreign student visa holders by April 30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Victory for American people' as Fauci phone and hard drives seized in Covid probe
Hard drives and a cell phone seized from Dr Anthony Fauci could shed light on key decisions during the Covid pandemic - including lockdowns and mask edicts. FBI director Kash Patel revealed Thursday the Trump administration had recovered the devices, calling it a 'great breakthrough' and a 'victory for the American people.' Fauci was chief medical adviser during the pandemic but flip-flopped on crucial Covid safety information - such as mask-wearing - and sought to silence scientists whose views, including the lab-leak theory, clashed with received wisdom. Speaking Thursday on the Joe Rogan Experience, Patel outlined the government's continuing investigation into the origins of the pandemic and the federal response. Patel said investigators had long struggled to locate the devices Fauci used while serving as White House medical adviser - records that could shed light on key decisions surrounding lockdowns, mask mandates, and ties between Fauci's former agency and the Wuhan laboratory central to the lab leak theory. During the episode - where Patel shared a cigar with Rogan and touched on topics ranging from Covid to UFOs - he revealed the FBI had recovered the phone and hard drives just days before the interview was recorded. Patel did not clarify when the phone was in use, how investigators verified its connection to Fauci, or how the devices were obtained. Nor did he disclose what the FBI's 'multiple investigations' into the pandemic's origin have uncovered so far. It is unclear exactly when the phone was used and how they verified it belonged to Fauci. He also warned against drawing premature conclusions, noting 'everything's not necessarily in there' and that potentially relevant data may have been erased. Still, Patel called the discovery 'a victory for the American people' and said his team is actively reviewing the contents of the devices. Patel said: 'We found it [the devices], and at least we can tell the American people we've been looking because it is of public importance to figure out, did that guy lie? 'Did he intentionally mislead the world and cause countless deaths? 'We owe those answers to the American people, and the best evidence ever is always the people's evidence who created it. So now we're going to go and exploit those hard drives.' 'We did find it [the cell phone], we're not done, we're still looking and we're on the case.' Patel did not specify how his team got the old phone or how they verified it was Fauci's. Generally, a warrant is required to seize a cell phone, even for a government official. There are no publicly available warrants out against Fauci. The FBI and CIA have both asserted they think Covid most likely originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Wuhan, China, which was conducting risky experiments on coronaviruses in the years leading up to the pandemic. Some of those experiments were funded by U.S. taxpayer money through grants awarded by Fauci's old department, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Fauci, once seen as an 'adult in the room' amid a chaotic and confusing government response to the initial 2020 outbreak, has seen his sparkling public image take a hit in recent years. Leaked emails show that in early 2020 he commissioned a paper denouncing the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy, then publicized the study at a White House news conference weeks later without disclosing his involvement. He and other public health experts also publicly dismissed the lab leak - with Fauci saying in June 2021 that it was 'a very, very, very, very remote possibility.' It later emerged that, as the head of the NIAID, he presided over the allocation of taxpayer-funded grants for virus-enhancing research at the WIV years before the pandemic began. A federal watchdog found the NIH 'did not effectively monitor' those experiments or check whether they involved pathogens with pandemic risk. Fauci also privately expressed concern the virus may have been the product of a research accident. Internationally, other intelligence agencies have also supported the lab-leak theory. The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) carried out a secret investigation into the origins of Covid nicknamed Project Saaremaa during the pandemic, sharing the findings with the U.S. in December 2024. Investigators found unpublished dissertations from 2019 and 2020 that allegedly discussed the effects of coronaviruses on the human body. Additionally, uncovered materials revealed Chinese scientists had 'an unusually large amount of knowledge about the supposedly novel virus available at an unusually early stage.' Based on the materials BND agents found and analyzed, they used a 'Probability Index' to measure the reliability of information, which determined the lab-leak theory was 'probable' with an '80 to 95 per cent' certainty. Robert Redfield, former CDC director when the pandemic erupted, also accused American and British health agencies of shutting down concerns over potential lab leaks. He has previously told he is '100 per cent' convinced Covid was the result of scientists becoming infected while carrying out high-risk experiments to boost the infectivity of bat viruses amid low biosecurity in Wuhan labs. Fauci has denied all accusations of Covid being 'covered up' or originating from a lab. Last year he told a U.S. House panel that he had not suppressed lab leak theories or influenced research to discredit it. He has also called accusations that he covered it up 'preposterous.' Patel said: 'My mission has always been to put out the truth, whatever the consequences, whoever it's against. What did Fauci get wrong? From telling people not to wear masks to claiming vaccines stopped infections Don't wear masks, do wear masks As global concern for Covid was surfacing in March 2020, Fauci told Americans that there was 'no need' to wear a face mask. He said they may only help people 'feel a little better', and 'might even block a droplet' — but would not provide good protection. Less than a month later, he was forced into an embarrassing climbdown after it emerged the virus spread via droplets in the air. Fauci later insisted he advised people not to wear masks to ensure there were enough available for hospitals and healthcare centers. Covid did not come from a lab Fauci has repeatedly insisted that Covid did not leak from a lab in China. He called the theory a 'shiny object that will go away,' and brushed aside claims from other top experts as an 'opinion.' Fauci has now backpedaled, saying instead he keeps an 'open mind' although insisting it remains 'most likely' that the virus spilled over from animals to humans. Two shots will stop you catching Covid When the Covid vaccine roll-out was in full swing, Fauci said the immunity from shots made doubly-vaccinated people a 'dead end' for the virus, and even suggested they may no longer need to wear masks. Schools shutdown Schools were closed from March through to August 2020, something Fauci later expressed regret about. He has since admitted he 'should have realized' there would be 'deleterious collateral consequences'.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump bill set to add trillions to US debt pile – can America stop it climbing?
In this febrile political era, few issues command stronger bipartisan support than the need for fiscal responsibility. Barack Obama and Donald Trump committed to curtail the US national debt on their respective roads to the White House. And yet, no matter the party, Americans have been able to count on one thing above most: the national debt will keep climbing. And here we are again. With Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' threatening to add once more to the US's huge debts, several Republican senators are threatening to block his current spending plans, with Rand Paul of Kentucky among those highly critical. Departing the White House, Elon Musk, the world's richest man, branded the bill a 'disgusting abomination'. But this administration is not alone. For decades, economists have expressed concern about US debt. Politicians have repeatedly pledged to tackle it. All the while, the pile continued to swell. Back in 2008, when Obama declared on the campaign trail it was high time Washington started 'taking responsibility for every dime that it spends', it stood at about $14.46tn. Back in 2015, when Trump promised on the trail to 'bring it down big league and quickly,' it stood at about $24.07tn. Last year, it rose to $35.46tn. On Wall Street, concern has been mounting to the brink of panic. Calling on Trump to reduce the deficit – the gap between what the US federal government spends and the money it raises, mainly via taxes – the billionaire investor Ray Dalio warned in March of a crisis within three years. 'I can't tell you exactly when it'll come,' he told Bloomberg. 'It's like the heart attack.' Trump appears to have paid little attention. While he dispatched the billionaire industrialist Musk to wield the axe across the federal government in the name of efficiency, Trump also pushed for sweeping tax cuts that impartial analysts estimate will add trillions of dollars to the debt pile. The anxiety stepped up a gear last month, when the ratings agency Moody's stripped the US of its last major top-tier credit rating, and cited the size of the debt pile now – and how large it expects it will grow. 'Successive US administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs,' said Moody's, predicting that 'current fiscal proposals under consideration' would not lessen spending or reduce deficits. 'Over the next decade, we expect larger deficits as entitlement spending rises while government revenue remains broadly flat.' There is technically a cap – known as the debt ceiling, or limit – on what the federal government can borrow. The first such broad limit, introduced in 1939, was set at a mere $45bn. Time and again, the US treasury department has been forced to ask Congress for the ceiling to be lifted, or suspended. This process has repeatedly sparked legislative battles on Capitol Hill in recent years, drawing in unrelated issues as the US drifted towards default on its debts, and prompting questions over the reliability of US debt as an investment – and calls for the limit to be scrapped altogether. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion Explaining its downgrade last month, Moody's noted that, as US deficits and debt have swollen, interest rates have risen, and interest payments on US government debt have increased markedly. The ratings agency expects the federal debt burden, equivalent to 98% of US gross domestic product (GDP) last year, to rise to 134% of GDP by 2035. 'Talk is cheap. People can say a lot of things,' said Owen Zidar, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University. 'It's easier to see what the policies have actually been.' When faced with a choice between prioritizing deficit reduction or an expensive policy, such as Obama's widening of health insurance coverage, 'it's not unreasonable to prioritize health insurance coverage', Zidar suggested. 'The key thing is to avoid big mistakes that are hard to reverse.' The Clinton administration made some 'hard choices' about where, and where not, to spend, he said, adding that tax cuts and the Iraq war under the Bush administration in early noughties were 'a big part of why we have debt and deficit problems today'. Presidents have historically managed to reassure investors, up to a point, that they shared their concern. 'If we stay on the current path', Obama said during a debt ceiling battle in 2011, 'our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.' But the volatility of Trump, who called himself the 'king of debt' and once even mooted only paying back half during his first run for the presidency, has added a layer of doubt. 'The Debt Limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an Economic catastrophe,' he wrote on Truth Social, his social network, this week. 'An erratic administration that generates a lot of uncertainty and calls into question things that have been true for most of the western world, that is a frightening prospect when the fiscal fundamentals aren't as good as they have always been,' said Zidar.
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
As US retreats, is there a ‘soft power' opportunity for UK?
The US is retreating from international cooperation, cutting support for free media abroad and reducing financial aid. Russia and China are spending up to £8bn on their global media activities to boost their influence. Amid these global tensions, the UK government recognises the dangers of a western retreat – but is struggling to fund a response. With such huge shifts in world politics, it is no wonder that some politicians fear the west is losing the 'soft power' battle – a phrase coined by the academic Joseph Nye in the 1980s to describe the ability to influence other nations through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. While it may seem a frustratingly abstract concept, recent world events suggest its use has very real consequences. China was viewed favourably by 29% of people studied across 18 countries in 2021. After huge soft power efforts, the figure has now increased to 40%, according to a study by the BBC and Tapestry Research. The study separately surveyed a group across 10 countries made up of people involved in business decisions. Among that group, China's favourability had increased from 39% to 51%. It found that watching CGTN or RT, the respective state broadcasters of China and Russia, made viewers more favourable to those countries. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been defunding independent media overseas such as Voice of America, known for delivering independent journalism to countries with restricted press freedoms. Overseas aid is being targeted. Over a longer period, Britain's traditionally potent soft power has been misfiring. 'The UK's soft power has been in decline roughly since Brexit, for the last 10 years, but we're still a top-tier player,' said Jonathan McClory, an expert on soft power who recently authored a report on the issue for Labour Together, a thinktank with close ties to Downing Street. 'We haven't managed to establish a compelling narrative of who we are and where we're going since Brexit … We've got a proper change in government, which gives the opportunity to do that. We have a willing audience, but we have to say what it is we're good at and act accordingly,' McClory said. UK ministers have recognised the urgency of the situation and also realise the opportunity for Britain's economy in fostering stronger international ties. The government set up a soft power council earlier this year and populated it with figures from across media, education, defence and beyond. It was a widely welcomed initiative, plugging in soft power to the top of government. A formal strategy is expected to follow this autumn. However, there is also a conflict at the heart of government. It is clear to most insiders that even the best-designed strategy will require funding. Key soft power institutions are struggling to cope with financial pressures, most notably the BBC World Service, the British Council and universities. Members of the newly formed soft power council are treading carefully, conscious that many ministers are sympathetic to the need for funding but have a tough task in securing it from the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, who is facing a myriad of pressing demands. Tristram Hunt, the director of the Victoria and Albert Museum and a member of the council, said: 'There is an importance in a growing age of autocracy to have that voice [of liberal, democratic values] heard. Budgets are strained and it's hard. We can't pick up all the slack left by a retreating America. But if we believe in these values, it's important to be on the front foot with them as far as we can.' Others on the council are more bullish, arguing that the US retreat creates a strategic opening for Britain. 'We have this incredible opportunity,' said Neil Mendoza, who served as a culture commissioner under the previous government. 'You have a threat on the one hand but also this opportunity because America has withdrawn. It is also cheap as chips – and can work in close partnership with hard power. Why wouldn't you invest in soft power?'
