Yes, Harvard had it coming — but Trump's ‘fix' is still unconstitutional

The Hill

18-05-2025

Two wrongs don't usually make a right. Yet in the standoff between Harvard University and the federal government, that's exactly where we find ourselves — trapped between Harvard's history of broken promises and the federal government's lawless threats.
It didn't have to be this way. This slow-motion car-wreck has been occurring for decades. Our nation's oldest university has spent years systematically undermining the principles of free speech and academic freedom that it claims to cherish.
Harvard has ranked dead last, two years in a row, in the College Free Speech Rankings published annually by my organization. Most recently, it placed 251st out of 251 surveyed universities, earning an 'Abysmal' rating for its campus speech climate.
Yet as bad as Harvard's failures may be, the Trump administration's response is even worse.
The administration has frozen billions of dollars of Harvard's federal funding in an effort to pressure the university into censoring disfavored views and surrendering its independence. That's unlawful and unconstitutional.
Although Harvard isn't entitled to federal funding, it — like everyone else — is entitled to a government that follows the law. Federal anti-discrimination law does not permit Washington to unilaterally cancel funding, as the administration has done here.
The First Amendment also bars the government from coercing private institutions into censorship. Courts have long held that the government cannot manipulate its funding to punish or silence ideas it dislikes. Yet that is precisely what's happening now.
Taken together, the Trump administration's actions look less like oversight and more like an attempt at a hostile takeover. The federal government doesn't have that power — and in a free society, it never should.
Worse, this brazen overreach risks undermining reform efforts already underway. Well aware of the institution's problems, Harvard's brain trust has recently demonstrated that it understands the first rule of holes — stop digging.
Throughout 2024, Harvard took several promising steps. The school formally adopted a policy of institutional neutrality which committed the university to refrain from taking official stances on contested political and social issues. It launched the Civil Discourse Initiative to help 'foster an environment of curiosity, ambition, [and] mutual understanding.' In addition, the president and provost accepted a recommendation to adopt the Chatham House Rule, aiming to ensure that classroom discussions remain candid and insulated from consequences outside the classroom.
These are the right kind of ideas. But they must be more than window dressing.
The solution to higher education's crisis of public credibility lies not in federal mandates, but in institutional clarity. Colleges must reform themselves — voluntarily and meaningfully — to protect free expression and academic freedom. Harvard, and institutions like it, must demonstrate a renewed commitment to these principles, not because the Trump administration or any politician has told them to, but because it's the right thing to do for their campuses and for the country.
Reestablishing that credibility will require Harvard and other universities to pursue real, lasting change. That means not just stronger written protections and student programming, but a visible and consistent protection of free speech for everyone, regardless of viewpoint.
As my organization has long advocated, this means embracing strong free speech principles modeled after the Chicago Statement, reaffirming institutional neutrality on political and social issues unrelated to core operations, and eliminating policies and practices that silence or punish dissent.
It also means ensuring that campus discipline is obviously fair, that peaceful protest is protected and illegal conduct not tolerated, and that no one is forced to affirm or reject politicized concepts such as 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' as a condition of admission or advancement. Institutions like Harvard must model and prioritize intellectual inquiry and the exchange of ideas, and they are uniquely equipped to do so.
Similarly, there are legitimate avenues for federal higher education reform.
But any conversation about federal intervention must start with a clear acknowledgment: Washington helped create this problem, it did not just stumble into the crisis. For decades, the federal government has imposed an ever-growing regulatory burden on colleges — distorting incentives, encouraging bureaucratic growth, and fueling the very censorial culture it now claims to oppose. From shifting definitions of harassment to pressure-laden Dear Colleague guidance, federal policy has too often pushed institutions toward speech-restrictive behavior.
If we want to restore a culture of free expression on campus, federal action must begin with restraint and proceed with care. That means not just scaling back the excesses that helped chill speech in the first place, but also pursuing targeted reforms that protect student rights while respecting institutional autonomy.
The government should follow proper procedures under Title VI to address discrimination. Congress should codify the Supreme Court's Davis standard to ensure that harassment claims cannot be weaponized and are limited to severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive conduct. It should also add religion as a protected class under Title VI to eliminate ambiguity over antisemitism and anti-Muslim discrimination while preserving key exceptions for religious institutions. These reforms would protect vulnerable students while safeguarding First Amendment rights.
In the end, the real solutions lie with the institutions themselves, which must return to the core values of free speech, open debate, and academic freedom that once made our colleges the intellectual center of the world.
Harvard and institutions nationwide face a choice: Continue down a path of censorship and growing distrust, or lead a revival of open dialogue, rigorous debate, and academic freedom.
The choice — and the future of American higher education — is in their hands.
Connor Murnane is campus advocacy chief of staff at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.