Harvard University defies Trump's demands, faces $2.3bn in funding cuts
Within hours of Harvard taking its stand on Monday, the Trump administration announced it was freezing $2.3bn in federal funding to the Ivy League school.
The funding freeze comes after the Trump administration said last month it was reviewing $9bn in federal contracts and grants to Harvard as part of a crackdown on what it says is anti-Semitism that erupted on college campuses during pro-Palestinian and anti-Gaza war protests over the past 18 months.
The freeze followed Harvard president Alan Garber's issuing a public letter calling the Trump administration's demands an attempt 'to control the Harvard community' and threaten the school's 'values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production and dissemination of knowledge'.
Rejecting the government's demands, which include reporting foreign students for code violations, reforming its governance and leadership, discontinuation of its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes as well as changing its hiring and admission policies, especially for international students, Garber said such interference was 'unprecedented' and 'beyond the power of the federal government.'
'No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' Garber's letter continued.
The US Department of Education's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, in a written statement, said Garber's letter 'reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws'.
Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington, DC, Patty Culhane, pointed out that while Harvard is not the first institution to be targeted, it has been 'the first to sound defiant', and even indicate 'that they might be willing to fight it in court'.
'So, a very big shift from what we've seen from other universities, but if anyone could do it, it's Harvard,' Culhane said.
The Trump administration has frozen hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for numerous universities, pressing the institutions to make policy changes and citing what it says is a failure to fight anti-Semitism on campus.
Columbia University was stripped of $400m in grants and contracts on March 7 for what the Trump administration alleged was allowing 'relentless violence, intimidation, and anti-Semitic harassment' on its campus.
Deportation proceedings have begun against several detained foreign students who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, while visas for hundreds of other students have been cancelled.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
3 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Resistance isn't a real strategy for the Democrats
Clive Crook Nearly nine months after Donald Trump's reelection, Democrats still can't make sense of it. Only the faintest glimmers of a reset are visible. The only thing that might pass for a strategy seems to be the hope that, given time, voters will finally come to their senses: It's the people who need to think again, not the politicians who are asking for their support. Given Trump's recklessness, this approach isn't in fact doomed to fail — yet his opponents need to do better. How, exactly? What should a Democratic reset look like? Let's move quickly past what's obvious, or ought to be. First, address the voters whose minds you want to change — people who voted for Trump — with respect. They don't like being called idiots and bigots. Acknowledge the elements of validity in Trump's account of what needs to change. Insist that support for Trump is a mistake, but neither groundless nor intelligible only as a consequence of racism or stupidity. Second, renounce — don't just decline to discuss — the provably unpopular woke nonsense that party extremists have set as an ideological litmus test. Sex is a social construct. Color-blindness is racist. Speech is violence. Equality is a fraud. Capitalism is evil. Immigrants can't be 'illegal.' The country's true founding was in 1619. And so forth. Democrats should stand for compassion and fairness, but not for an encompassing theory of systemic oppression that most Americans don't recognize and rightly view as unhinged. So much for the easy part. Equally important, though, is framing a popular and workable policy agenda — and this is less straightforward. Democrats stand for nothing if not redistribution, regulation of market excesses, equal opportunity and support for the less fortunate. But these noble and desirable purposes all involve trade-offs, which Democrats often prefer to ignore. That's a mistake. Voters need to be persuaded that such policies won't do more harm than good and that reformers understand the drawbacks. The party needs to line up with policies that express its values while reassuring voters it knows what it's doing. Woke is the opposite of reassuring, but anti-woke isn't enough to project competence. The themes I'd recommend are opportunity and security — as opposed to 'justice' or 'equity,' which imply (deliberately or otherwise) fundamental failures of market-based economies and a desire for root-and-branch transformation. Persuadable Trump voters, the target audience, don't despise the rich or long for a progressive utopia. They want pragmatic, intelligible interventions that engage with their economic goals and anxieties. The most promising ideas address both at once. Dislocation caused by trade and innovation is a main cause of economic insecurity. Historically, innovation has been by far the more disruptive of the two — and the advent of AI could be especially so. Trying to stop such disruptions would be folly, but when jobs are lost, the U.S. should do more to cushion the victims and help them find new, better ways to make a living. The US has only ever flicked at this, with half-hearted programs such as Trade Adjustment Assistance, too narrowly purposed and seriously underfunded. A bigger and more comprehensive program, delivering income support during the transition from job to job, help with moving costs and associated complications, and guidance on training and further education still won't make economic disruption win-win — but it would spread the costs more broadly and, through upskilling and better allocation of labor, raise productivity and add to the overall gains. Better schools are critical for advancing opportunity for children of the poor and low-paid. One of America's biggest public-policy anomalies is that government-run schools in prosperous areas are far better financed than schools in poor areas (where financially stressed parents can't make up the difference). Equality of opportunity means using federal money to redress this imbalance. Probably even more important is to raise the quality of teaching and management in schools that serve the less well-off. Some Democrats may balk, because it means recognizing (as parents did during the pandemic) that teachers' unions put their members' interests above those of the children they teach. The remedy is to empower parents with vouchers and force schools to compete. Ideally, the alliance between Democrats and public-sector unions — and with teachers above all — would be scrapped entirely. That's unimaginable, but the terms of this partnership need to be revised. Ensuring that work pays should be a central part of the Democrats' opportunity agenda. Make low-wage subsidies such as the earned-income tax credit more generous. Simplify taxes and benefits to reduce unintended disincentives (as when a small increase in wages triggers a big loss of income). Grasp the nettle of Social Security reform and redesign the payroll tax, which kicks in at the first dollar of earnings. In my dreams, the payroll tax is replaced with a value-added tax, which is less regressive, less anti-work and less anti-saving — but the Democrats have a long way to go before voters would trust them with such a radical change. Helping those on low incomes to save is about security as well as opportunity: Living paycheck to paycheck is stressful. Existing savings reliefs and incentives tilt heavily in favor of the better off, and are inordinately complicated to boot. Democrats should propose subsidized auto-enrollment plans for saving, to supplement Social Security in retirement and to meet unforeseen expenses; they should design them with those on low pay uppermost in mind. Health-care costs — Obamacare notwithstanding — are still a principal cause of financial insecurity. Democrats have proposed various kinds of 'public option' health insurance. They should dare to press this idea again. This, too, is treacherous terrain because Democrats would be taking their own reform, which many voters unfairly perceive as a failure, back to the drawing board. 'What if they come up with something even worse?' But it's necessary, because the existing system, even after Obamacare's improvements, is still a disgrace: expensive, complicated, anxiety-inducing because of the link to employer-provided coverage (lose your job, you're uninsured), yielding poor health outcomes (by international standards), and failing, above all, to shield people of limited means from the risk of financial catastrophe. Two last things — falling again under the heading of 'should be obvious.' First, fiscal discipline. The policies sketched above will cost money. (Remember trade-offs?) Democrats must explain how they'll fund their plans. 'Let the top 1% pay' won't cut it. Nor will 'public debt doesn't matter.' Much of the burden will fall on the middle class. The challenge will be to explain why, on balance, the middle class will be better off as a result. Second, Americans want the border secured and are entitled to choose who they welcome as immigrants. Merely turning up at the border isn't a qualification for eventual citizenship. Whatever else they do, Democrats must bring themselves as a party to care about the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. That's a lot to discuss. The party, still firmly in resistance mode, is barely even thinking about it. Democrats must understand that resistance isn't a programme for government — which is what beating the Republicans might well require. (Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics.)
Qatar Tribune
3 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
QRCS, talabat raise over QR 300,000 for Gaza
Tribune News Network Doha A joint campaign co-implemented by Qatar Red Crescent Society (QRCS) and talabat, the leading on-demand delivery platform in the MENA region, has successfully raised over QR 300,000 for Gaza relief efforts. The one-month campaign received a stronger-than-expected response from talabat customers, who chose to redeem and convert their reward points into donations on the talabat app. This contribution will go to QRCS, in support of its ongoing efforts to provide the blockade with every possible form of relief assistance, including water, food and medical care, amid such an unprecedented humanitarian calamity. In a statement, Faisal Mohamed Al-Emadi, Secretary-General of QRCS, expressed his sincerest gratitude to the benevolent people of Qatar, who made the campaign a remarkable success with their donations and compassion. 'It was another impressive episode of solidarity and support from the people of Qatar towards their Palestinian brothers and sisters,' said Al-Emadi. 'Even the smallest donation can make a real difference in the lives of the affected people of Gaza.' This is not the first time QRCS and talabat join hands for charity. In November 2024, a similar campaign raised over QR 1.1 million in donations, to support relief interventions for the war victims in both Gaza and Lebanon.
Qatar Tribune
4 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Trump tariffs hit India's shrimp farmers, profits slashed
Agencies On India's southern coast, V Srinivas thrived for two decades by farming shrimp, as the country became the top supplier of the delicacy to the United States. Now, Donald Trump's 50 percent tariff threat is forcing many to consider other ways of making money. Andhra Pradesh state sends the most shrimp from India to the US and farmers there have spent millions of rupees (hundreds of thousands of US dollars) over the years to cultivate high-quality shrimp in saline ponds. Now they are being hit hard as Indian exporters have slashed rates they offer farmers by almost 20 percent after the tariff shock, wiping out most of their profits. 'I am contemplating if I should do fish farming,' said the 46-year-old from Veeravasaram village who has already mortgaged his family property and has $45,800 in outstanding loans. 'These prices will not help me get any profits and I will not be able to pay off my loan.' The United States is the biggest market for India's shrimp farmers and exporters, with clients including US supermarket chains such as Walmart and Kroger. Last year, total seafood exports from India globally stood at $7.4 billion, with shrimp accounting for 40 percent. But the industry is now in troubled waters with President Trump's 25 percent tariff on imports from India already in place - the highest among major economies, and another 25 percent levy to kick in from August 27 to penalize New Delhi for buying Russian oil. By comparison, Ecuador, India's main rival for shrimp exports to the US, faces a much lower 15 percent tariff, heightening its competitive edge. In Andhra, there are around 300,000 farmers engaged in shrimp farming, selling products to dozens of exporters who ship to America. Pawan Kumar, head of the Seafood Exporters Association of India, said orders from US clients have been paused in recent weeks as buyers aren't willing to absorb the tariff, and neither can exporters, forcing the latter to cut prices they pay to farmers. Although India also sells shrimp to other countries such as China, Japan and the UK, and likely will look to expand sales there and diversify into new markets, 'that's not going to happen overnight,' Kumar said. The impact is yet another example of how Trump's tariff threats are causing business disruptions across the world, especially in India, given it faces one of the steepest levies that have soured its relations with Washington. In Andhra, six of 12 farmers Reuters interviewed said they were considering putting shrimp farming on hold and looking at fish farming, vegetable retailing or other local businesses to tide over the crisis. The other six are choosing to wait it out a bit. Each round of shrimp cultivation takes about 2 months or more. While prices being offered for their shrimp are being slashed, the farmers said they still face loan payments and high operating costs for electricity, raw material and feed, as well as high land rentals. 'There's hardly a 20-25 percent profit for us on good days, and if that's getting eaten up, what else is left?,' said Gopinath Duggineni, the chief of a local union in Ongole city, adding the farmers plan to seek financial support from the state government. Ecuador, meanwhile, is closely tracking tariffs on India to seize on business opportunities, but producers there will go slow on new investments amid uncertainty over whether India and the Trump administration could strike a tariff deal, said Jose Antonio Camposano, president of National Chamber of Aquaculture of Ecuador. 'India's exports are highly concentrated in the United States ... just as China is for us. So that is where we could gain ground if India withdraws,' he said.
