
Editorial: Harvard defends itself in a way all Americans should understand
Any other year, such a metaphor would have been absurd. Even a year ago at Harvard, the very notion of community was stretching the definition of the world, with students and faculty at odds over the school's response to the conflict in the Middle East. A matter of weeks ago, twin internal Harvard reports had found both a rise in 'Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli bias' and in 'Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian bias.' No wonder the university's President Alan Garber called the 2023-24 academic year 'disappointing and painful.'
But nothing squelches internal fighting like a common enemy. This week, Harvard finally got its act together to defend itself, and by extension, all American universities, against extraordinary governmental attacks by articulating a defense resting on three granite pillars: freedom of speech, the importance of the rule of law and the value of America educating the world.
Such, of course, are traditional Republican values as well as Democratic positions, arguably more so, given Democrats queasiness over at least the first two during the COVID era.
Finally, a higher education sector that had fallen under the thrall of extremists and thus removed itself from the lives of most Americans has figured out that it can explain its importance if it does so in language core to the founding and essence of this republic. Such a defense was a long time coming but was balm for the ears once it arrived at what must surely have been just about the most politically charged graduation in Harvard's long history, given that contemporaneous news of a court putting a hold on the Trump administration's intent to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students became part of the ceremony.
After all, what American argument could possibly be made for prohibiting international students, at least beyond the tiny percentage employed as some kind of spy? The benefits flow both ways: loyalty to America from such graduates has long been a major source of U.S. soft power and, of course, their full tuition, typically, boosts the local economy and often subsidizes low-income domestic students. And who beyond a xenophobe could possibly believe that one's education is not enhanced by a classmate from elsewhere in the world, a truth that applies to kindergarten just as much as at Harvard?
Garber was greeted by a long, standing ovation at Harvard on Thursday, reflective of broad appreciation of his stand against the Trump administration. But Verghese, of Stanford University, a physician who spoke of compassion, healing and of life's brevity, was the chief messenger of sanity.
'The outrage you must feel, the outrage so many feel,' he said, 'also must surely lead us to a new appreciation. Appreciation for the rule of law and due process, which till now we took for granted — because this is America after all!'
Verghese noted it was 'a reflex of so-called strong men to attack the places where truth and reason prevail.' An immigrant himself, he captured the fundamental optimism of the aspirational arriver on American shores: 'Who believes in America more than the immigrant who runs down the gangplank and kisses the ground?'
He said the values of a university fighting against 'a cascade of draconian government measures' represent the values of the entire nation and he did so with optimism, this being a graduation and all.
'I know,' he said, 'that we will find our way back to an America whose attributes I admired from afar.'
We know that too. And we also know that the students who graduated in recent weeks from many fine universities, including those matriculating next weekend at the University of Chicago, will be among those charged with that return.
'Though many would be loath to admit it,' Garber said Thursday at Harvard, 'absolute certainty and willful ignorance are two sides of the same coin, a coin with no value but costs beyond measure.'
Here was a clever, even a passive-aggressive metaphor of a meme, along the same lines as Verghese saying that immigrants can and will 'keep America great.' 'The world,' Garber said, 'tempts us with the lure of what one might generously call comfortable thinking, a habit of mind that readily convinces us of the merits of our own assumptions, the veracity of our own arguments, and the soundness of our own opinions, positions, and perspectives — so committed to our beliefs that we seek information that confirms them as we discredit evidence that refutes them.'
It was inspiring to hear such strong minds focus not on dogma or the grievances of identity politics but on the importance of critical thinking, of staying open to the world, of challenging one's own certainties, of being led not as sheep scared to go against the majority and determined to filter all facts through personal biases but as Americans open to being flat wrong. It is not only Harvard's best defense — or any university's best defense — against an authoritarian government. It is this country's best defense.
The next step, though, is to better understand why those attacks on free academic speech and openness to the world are arriving from a legitimately elected administration with the backing of so many fellow Americans, including so many of those who value freedom above all else.
That's the most important charge to the Class of 2025.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
13 minutes ago
- UPI
Guard deployment in Washington, D.C. 'desensitizing' to military presence
1 of 5 | A National Guardsman and Humvee are seen outside of Union Station in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. President Donald Trump federalized the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department and called up 800 National Guardsman in response to his declaration of a public safety emergency. Photo by Jemal Countess/UPI | License Photo Aug. 18 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in Washington, D.C., has again placed military soldiers on the streets of an American city. Despite data from local law enforcement showing a prolonged decline in the rates of violent crime, the president has invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, a provision that allows Trump to commandeer control of the Metropolitan Police Department, declare a state of emergency and unleash federal resources on the district. The move is unprecedented according to academics, historians and a former district official who spoke with UPI. "The federal government has the power to dictate terms to the city," Chris Myers Asch, a visiting history professor at Colby College in Maine and author of Chocolate City: A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital, told UPI. "In that sense, this is really about power. This is about power, not really about crime. President Trump is doing this in D.C. because he can. He's taking this sliver of authority and pushing it to its fullest extent." Trump's orders The president's executive order declaring an emergency in Washington says "crime is out of control," causing a threat to public safety and endangering public servants. The impetus for the declaration stems, at least in part, from the alleged assault on a former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency. Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old referred to as "Big Balls," by a group of teenagers earlier in August. Trump responded to reports of the assault with language repeated in his executive order. "Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control," he said. With the declaration, Trump has placed Attorney General Pam Bondi to oversee the Metropolitan Police Department for up to 30 days. Bondi is to monitor the emergency conditions and keep the president updated. She will also have the responsibility of recommending whether this federal intervention continues for the full 30 days or if emergency measures are no longer needed. David Super, professor of law at Georgetown University Law School, told UPI the president's authority to declare such an emergency and exercise executive power in this way is fairly broad. "Technically, the law allows the president to demand the Metropolitan Police Department's 'services' to meet federal needs," Super said. On Thursday, Bondi delivered orders to Mayor Muriel Bowser and the Metropolitan Police Department, appointing Terrence C. Cole, Justice Department Drug Enforcement Administrator, as the city's emergency police commissioner. Bondi also called for an end to so-called sanctuary city policies, which she attributed in part to increasing the dangers "posed by violent crime." Following this directive, Washington, D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith issued an executive order to direct officers to work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enforce Trump's deportation policies. During a press conference announcing the takeover of the police department on Monday, Trump added that he is deploying the National Guard to "restore order and public safety." "They're going to be allowed to do their job properly," Trump said. The National Guard took to the streets, sweeping homeless encampments and making itself visible to residents in the city. Other federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Drug Enforcement Administration have also been on patrol. The increased visibility of law enforcement and armed soldiers has drawn protests with demonstrators evoking the term "fascists." Mary Cheh, law professor at George Washington University, was a D.C. council member for 16 years, representing Ward 3 until 2022. She told UPI that Trump's orders will require city officials to "fall in line." "The local authorities will attempt to work cooperatively," she said. "When there's a federal decision, they'll just simply have to fall in line." The National Guard increases the visibility of law enforcement but it does not dramatically change enforcement capabilities, according to Cheh. The National Guard is not capable of carrying out investigations, making citations or processing an arrest. Those responsibilities remain with local law enforcement agencies. "The National Guard can detain people but not arrest," she said. "The 4th Amendment still applies. Their main function, so it seems, is being present, being seen." The Fourth Amendment protects people from being stopped and frisked without reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous. Local reaction The local response from the public has not been as receptive to the federal takeover, based on discussions Cheh has had with fellow residents. "There are attempts to organize protests," Cheh said. "That will actually feed into [Trump's] desire to militarize the district." The bench trial over Trump's deployment of armed forces in Los Angeles, Newsom vs. Trump, began on Monday. In that case, Trump deployed soldiers in the name of immigration enforcement. The dynamics are different in the case of Washington due to the federal government having oversight over the district but the now repeated use of federal forces raises alarms, Cheh said. "It's desensitizing us. 'Let's get used to the military patrolling our streets,'" she said. "How do you do that? You have them do that and you have them do that again. That's one of the large consequences here. He showed this in California. He's already said he's going to be thinking about other cities, bringing in the military." "In D.C., people are very worried. They're worried about being intimidated by the presence of the military," Cheh added. "They're very worried that what will happen is something akin to what the local police did in New York. Stop and frisk without proper justification." Barbara Zia and Anne Stauffer, Washington residents and co-presidents of the League of Women Voters of D.C., told UPI the presence of increased law enforcement varies based on neighborhood and time of the day. The 5th Ward -- where there is a greater immigrant population -- east of the Anacostia River, Mount Pleasant and the busy nightlife district on 14th Street are among those that have seen the largest uptick in police presence. "I have heard reports of ICE particularly in my neighborhood in Mount Pleasant," Stauffer said. "It's been very dependent on where you live in the district and what time you were out. They are moving towards a 24/7 presence." "People are shocked," Zia said. "I don't think people were prepared for this." A coalition of 126 civil rights organizations signed a letter to members of Congress, urging them to use their Constitutional authority to push back against the president's use of executive authority. "In the place of proven strategies aimed at reducing and preventing crime, President Trump's decision to commandeer the police and fill the streets with National Guard servicemembers -- is not simply a matter of political theater and distraction," the letter reads. "It also poses a dire threat to longstanding efforts to foster trust between the police and the communities they serve, especially in light of President Trump's claim that he would allow the police under his command to 'do whatever the hell they want,' raising concerns that the civil rights of D.C. residents may be sacrificed in the process." Home Rule Act The Home Rule Act was passed in 1973 to grant Washington a level of autonomy. It has allowed residents to elect mayors and council members but with congressional oversight. Section 740 grants the president the ability to exert control over the Metropolitan Police Department for up to 30 days. Congressional approval is required to extend that control beyond 30 days. Super said it is unclear what the president means to achieve during this federal takeover. "The president has fairly broad authority to respond to unanticipated problems. Crime is hardly unanticipated," Super said. "Given that crime is declining in the district, it's hard to argue that it falls within the intent of the presidential authority to respond to things that are unanticipated." "Certainly there's concern when you take power outside the legal mechanism in this case by making a finding that is clearly not truthful," he continued. "No one has identified something the Metropolitan Police aren't doing that they ought to be doing. There are arguments that they need more prosecutors and judges. More police doesn't fix that." There are no firm mechanisms in place to check Trump's use of executive power in this instance, outside of legal intervention, according to Super. "If he wants to do this once to score some political points and distract from the discussion of the Epstein files, he's going to get away with it," he said. "If this becomes a habit and going along with it turns out to not be the way of resolving the problem, you can certainly imagine a number of groups would challenge this as being contrary to the authorizing statute from Congress." Cheh is not confident legal intervention would be effective. "I don't see any immediate counter to what he is doing," she said. "There's nothing requiring him to specify or justify, but only to make an effective finding in his own mind about whether we have an emergency on our hands. That's one of the gaps in the law as it is. The framers here thought whoever was president would make a judgement that was consistent with what most of us would regard as an actual emergency." Federal control and the role of race Since the Home Rule Act was passed, no president has made a serious attempt to revoke this local control, though the government has intervened in local affairs on several occasions. Asch told UPI that D.C. has often been a sort of "laboratory" for federal officials. "D.C. is often a battleground for national policy," he said. "It's often a laboratory for federal officials to try out ideas that they might want to take nationwide." Long before Home Rule, D.C. was at the center of the nation's reckoning over slavery. As a southern city, slavery played a prominent role in the local economy. In the 1860s, Charles Sumner led a charge of abolitionists, considered radical Republicans at the time according to Asch, to make the city an example of equality for the rest of the country. "He and the radical Republicans eliminated slavery in the city before the Emancipation Proclamation over the objections of local White residents who were the voting population at the time," Asch said. "Many local district leaders, White leaders, complained that the federal government was usurping their local authority." The federal government used to control D.C. through unelected commissioners that were appointed by the president. This ended when Home Rule was passed. "The fear of Black political power was a major reason why Congress stepped in in the 1870s to strip away the right to vote from all voters, Black and White, and turn the city basically into a creature of the federal government," Asch said. "For a century after Reconstruction, the fear of Black political power kept the government very much in charge of the city through three presidentially-appointed, unelected commissioners." Race continues to play a role in the perception of the city. Presidents including Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, as well as members of Congress cast doubt on local leaders, mayors and council members, many of whom were Black. They cast crime as being emblematic of the incompetence of these officials, Asch said. "Race is inextricably intertwined with the city's history," he said. "You have the presence of a large, visible, very active Black community from the founding of the city that has been a major animating force," Asch said. "Particularly in terms of the relationship between the federal government and the local population." Federal officers, National Guard patrol Washington Residents keep with their normal routine and run past National Guard troops on the National Mall near the Washington Monument on August 12, 2025. Photo by Pat Benic/UPI | License Photo


CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Trump falsely claims US is only country that uses mail-in voting
Donald Trump Fighting disinformation US electionsFacebookTweetLink Follow President Donald Trump made a series of false claims about elections in a Monday social media post in which he pledged to 'lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS' and voting machines – including an inaccurate assertion that states have to run elections in the manner the president tells them to. Here is a fact check of some of Trump's comments. 'We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED.' False. Dozens of other countries use mail-in voting, as CNN and others have pointed out when Trump has made such claims before. These countries include Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and Switzerland. The specifics of different countries' policies vary, but it's simply not true that every other country has abandoned mail-in voting. 'WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections.' Trump's claim about Democrats is nonsense. There is simply no basis for the assertion of massive cheating. US federal elections are free and fair; there has generally been a tiny quantity of ballot fraud representing a minuscule percentage of votes cast. '…Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM. ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS.' More fiction. Mail-in voting is a legitimate method used by legitimate voters to cast legitimate ballots. Elections experts say the incidence of fraud tends to be marginally higher with mail-in ballots than with in-person ballots – but also that fraud rates in federal elections are tiny even with mail-in ballots. Republican-dominated Utah is among the states where voters are automatically sent mail-in ballots (though it is now phasing out that policy); its elections, like other states', have been free of widespread fraud. And it's worth noting that Trump himself encouraged supporters to vote by mail in 2024. 'Remember, the States are merely an 'agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes. They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY, to do.' That's not what the Constitution says. Here's what it does say: 'The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.' In other words, states set their own election policies unless Congress passes a law preempting them. The Constitution does not grant the president himself the power to simply tell states what to do, using an executive order or anything else.


Boston Globe
14 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump says he wants to get rid of mail-in ballots
Writing on Truth Social on Monday, Trump said: 'THE MAIL-IN BALLOT HOAX, USING VOTING MACHINES THAT ARE A COMPLETE AND TOTAL DISASTER, MUST END, NOW!!!' Advertisement Trump also wrote that he wanted to get rid of voting machines, which he described as inaccurate and expensive. He claimed, incorrectly, that the United States was 'the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up His social media post did not elaborate on what the executive order would say. It was also not immediately clear whether the Trump administration could stop the use of mail-in voting, which is largely entrusted to individual states. Trump argued in his post that states were 'merely an agent' for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes.' 'They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them,' Trump said. Trump's latest comments came after he said that President Vladimir Putin of Russia had discussed the issue during their summit Friday in Alaska. Trump said in an interview with Fox News that the Russian leader had agreed with him that the 2020 election had been rigged in favor of Biden. 'He said, 'Your election was rigged because you have mail-in voting,'' Trump quoted Putin as saying. Advertisement Trump claimed in his Truth Social post that Democrats were 'virtually Unelectable' without mail voting. In past elections, Republican skepticism about mail-in ballots and early voting had given Democrats an advantage. In some races in 2020, Republican candidates who led in early vote counts saw those advantages shrink -- and in some cases evaporate -- after mailed ballots were counted.