Latest news with #MarxistManiacs
The Hindu
27-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
‘David Harvard' versus ‘Goliath Trump'
The ongoing conflict between Harvard University and the Trump 2.0 administration has dramatically escalated since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared on May 22 that it would prohibit Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, calling the action a 'blatant violation' of constitutional rights. While the litigation continues, a federal judge has temporarily barred the government's decision. Mr. Trump has long attacked elite universities, claiming that they promote ideologies that are incompatible with American principles. Throughout the 2024 campaign trail, he pledged to reduce 'excessively large private endowments' through taxes, fines, and lawsuits. He vowed to reclaim America's 'once great educational institutions from the radical Left and Marxist Maniacs.' In 2021, Vice President J.D. Vance called universities 'the enemy'. It is therefore not surprising that Mr. Trump is now attempting to exert unheard-of influence over university matters. An escalating crisis In mid-March, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University and handed a 'ransom note' with numerous demands for returning the funds. Columbia collapsed under pressure. To win over universities, that was a significant step forward. However, a victory over Harvard, the oldest and wealthiest American university, was necessary for Mr. Trump to control universities. Incidentally, Harvard has been perceived by Mr. Trump and his MAGA supporters as having a liberal leaning, serving as a foundation for American elitism, opposing free expression, advocating DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and undermining traditional values. In April, the administration's demands that Harvard restrict the influence of its faculty and students, report any conduct violations by international students to federal authorities, and designate an outside party to guarantee that each academic department is 'viewpoint diverse' marked the beginning of the current conflict. According to Harvard President Alan Garber, fulfilling these demands would give the federal government 'control over the Harvard community' and endanger the university's 'values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge.' Harvard, with a huge $52 billion endowment, refused to 'fold' like Columbia did. When the administration froze $2.26 billion in its multiyear grants, Harvard filed a lawsuit. On May 5, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote that Harvard wouldn't be eligible for any more federal grants until it demonstrates 'responsible management.' Subsequently, the university lost $450 million in grants from eight U.S. agencies. The administration vowed to deprive Harvard of its tax-exempt status. A substantial tax hike on the net investment from private college endowments, such as Harvard's, has been included in legislation passed by the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Since wealthy donors frequently donate to tax-exempt institutions to reduce their own tax obligations, this would impact the school's capacity to generate money. Harvard broadened its lawsuit to include the additional budget cuts. In a statement dated May 22, the DHS claimed that Harvard's leadership 'created an unsafe environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals.' It claimed that international students made up a large portion of the agitators. The Trump administration had the option of acting slowly. It could have let Harvard's ongoing grants expire quietly, refused to renew them, and penalised universities for alleged racial discrimination. Instead, it has created a huge noise in a hurry and, consequently, succeeded in transforming Harvard University into a valiant 'David' opposing the government's 'Goliath'. Harvard accuses the Trump administration of using international students as pawns in a 'campaign of retribution… without process or cause.' Nearly 6,800 international students attend Harvard, making up 27% of its total student body. Revoking visa authorisation, according to the university, would seriously and immediately disrupt its day-to-day operations and require it to rescind admission to thousands of applicants. What next? While the U.S. may be undermining its own power by targeting its universities, the U.S. government has control over who is allowed to enter the country. To accept international students, American educational institutions are required to retain a certification through the DHS's Student and Exchange Visitor Program. Therefore, the government may jeopardise Harvard's international enrolment if it wishes to do so. Harvard's battle against the Trump administration is turning into an epic and will surely serve as a historical reference in any discussion over academic freedom. What's more, Mr. Trump might have just 'crowned' Harvard as the opposition leader. Whether or not 'David Harvard' defeats 'Goliath Trump', this battle could help redraw the boundaries for 'academic freedom', which remains an abstract concept, and serve as a road map to rethink the relationship between the government and universities in other parts of the world. A shadowy region would remain, though, which would orchestrate many such future confrontations.
Straits Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
US govt bans Harvard from enrolling foreign students: The many ways Trump is attacking the elite university
Harvard University has filed a lawsuit alleging that the US government has threatened its independence and stifled free speech. PHOTO: AFP US govt bans Harvard from enrolling foreign students: The many ways Trump is attacking the elite university WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump has been waging a campaign to pressure elite US colleges to make a wide range of policy changes, in what his administration has framed as an initiative to fight campus antisemitism and enforce civil rights protections. In a battle between academic independence and campus oversight, the government has tried to coerce educational institutions by rescinding funding and revoking the visas of international students. Harvard University has borne the brunt of Mr Trump's ire. His administration has frozen more than US$2.6 billion (S$3.4 billion) in federal research grants over Harvard's refusal to overhaul its governance, discipline, hiring and admissions policies that are inconsistent with the White House's agenda. It revoked the certification of the university's program for international students, meaning they can no longer attend Harvard. There could be more pain on the way for the Ivy League school. Mr Trump has said he will strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status - a benefit that saved it at least US$465 million in 2023, according to Bloomberg News analysis. The Republican-led House of Representatives has passed legislation that includes a significant tax increase on the net investment from private college endowments, including Harvard's. Harvard filed a lawsuit alleging that the government has threatened its independence and stifled free speech by suspending the federal research grants. It called the block on foreign student enrollment unlawful. What is Trump's problem with elite universities? Mr Trump has long railed against elite universities, which he argues foster ideas antithetical to American values and observe policies that violate laws prohibiting racial discrimination. During his 2024 election campaign, Mr Trump threatened to use taxation, fines and lawsuits to shrink 'excessively large private endowments' and wrote that he would 'reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left and Marxist Maniacs'. His criticism of Harvard, America's oldest and richest university, has focused mainly on the administration's alleged failure to adequately combat antisemitism. Harvard's campus, like many across the country, experienced a long period of turmoil after the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which the US classifies as a terrorist organization, killed 1,200 people in Israel and kidnapped more than 200 hostages in October 2023. In the ensuing war, more than 53,000 Palestinians have died in the Gaza Strip, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. The conflict led to campus protests and complaints by some Jewish students and outside Jewish groups of rampant antisemitism at Harvard. Mr Alan Garber, a longtime provost, became the interim president of the university in January 2024 following the resignation of President Claudine Gay. In August, Harvard tapped him to be the permanent leader, and Mr Garber made changes in response to the complaints, such as adopting a formal definition of antisemitism and introducing new educational programming for students. But Mr Trump and other conservatives complained that Harvard didn't go far enough to protect Jewish students. In an April 11 letter to the university, the Trump administration identified a group of Harvard programs, including the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Divinity School, that it said 'fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture'. The Department of Homeland Security said in a May 22 statement that Harvard's leadership had 'created an unsafe environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals'. It said many of the agitators were international students. The department also accused Harvard's leadership of co-ordinating with the Chinese Communist Party. Republican lawmakers in Congress sent a May 19 letter to Mr Garber demanding information about the school's links to China's government and its military, and alleging that the university has hosted and trained members of a paramilitary organisation carrying out a genocide against the Uyghurs, a Muslim ethnic group. What led up to the funding freeze? On March 31, the Trump administration threatened to pull nearly US$9 billion in research grants because of what it called Harvard's failure to 'combat antisemitic harassment'. A federal task force to combat antisemitism sent demands on April 3 for governance reforms that it said Harvard must make to still get federal dollars. The April 11 letter laid out the administration's revised set of demands, including that Harvard achieve 'viewpoint diversity' in its academic departments; adopt strictly 'merit-based' admissions and hiring practices; eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs; diminish the influence of faculty 'more committed to activism than scholarship'; and ban international students 'hostile to American values'. Mr Garber rejected the demands, saying in a statement on April 14: '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.' Hours later, the US froze US$2.2 billion in multiyear grants, and on April 21, Harvard sued the government. The situation continued to escalate. Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent a letter to Harvard on May 5 saying that the university wouldn't be eligible for any more federal grants until it demonstrates 'responsible management'. Days later, eight US agencies terminated US$450 million in grants to the university. As the feud deepened, Harvard expanded its lawsuit on May 13 to cover the additional funding cuts. What does Harvard's lawsuit claim? Harvard sued a group of US executive branch agencies and top officials in Boston federal court, claiming the funding freeze violated the university's First Amendment right to free speech. By withholding federal funds, the government tried to 'coerce Harvard to conform with the government's preferred mix of viewpoints and ideologies,' the original complaint said. Harvard claimed the agencies sought to assert undue control of the school, and argued that the government cannot supplant Harvard's own decision-making in combating antisemitism. The suit also contended that the government violated federal regulations for cutting funding. For instance, the administration has invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, to justify its actions against Harvard. But Harvard claimed the act gives it the right to to work voluntarily with the government to correct any compliance failures, and the government didn't afford the university any opportunity to do so before freezing funds. Harvard's amended lawsuit makes the same basic claims as the April 21 complaint – that a wide range of government agencies violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by abruptly cutting off funding. What's the impact of the funding freeze? In a letter to the Harvard community, Mr Garber said the consequences will be 'severe and long-lasting.' He said it will affect the university's research on childhood cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. According to the lawsuit, the freeze will also impact the education of thousands of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in science, technology, medicine and public health. In the last academic year, Harvard received approximately US$700 million in research funding from various federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defence and Energy. As Harvard looks to counter the loss of federal funds, it has said it will free up an extra US$250 million of university money to help pay for research during the coming academic year, adding to the approximately US$500 million it already spends on research annually. Mr Garber is also voluntarily reducing his salary by 25 per cent for the year starting July 1. Can Harvard offset the funding freeze with its endowment? Harvard sits on an endowment valued at more than US$53 billion. But unlike a bank account, this pool can't be tapped at any time. A portion of the endowment is paid out as an annual distribution to support the university's budget. Much of the rest is set aside for specific purposes or tied up in illiquid assets. What's the impact of the block on international students? At Harvard, nearly 6,800 international students – 27 per cent of the entire student body – come from more than 140 other countries, up from 19.6 per cent in 2006, according to the university's data. The loss of tuition from international students will put Harvard's finances under further pressure. For international students who expected to enter Harvard in the fall, the timing could not be worse. Harvard's deadline to accept admission offers was May 1 – the same day that most other US colleges expected students to respond to their offers. Can a US president revoke a university's tax-exempt status? On May 2, Mr Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform: 'We are going to be taking away Harvard's Tax Exempt Status. It's what they deserve!' He made the announcement after weeks of threatening a change to the school's tax status. Four Democratic senators have called for an investigation into whether Mr Trump's targeting of Harvard violates a criminal law barring the president from ordering the Internal Revenue Service to target people and organizations with investigations and audits. It appears Mr Trump 'publicly and repeatedly broke this law when he suggested that Harvard should lose its exempt status for not bending to his will,' they said in a letter to Heather Hill, the Treasury Department's acting inspector general for tax administration. Under the Internal Revenue Code, no organisation can lose its tax-exempt status until the IRS conducts a 'careful objective review' of its actions and the entity has had a chance to appeal the agency's decision, the senators wrote. Has a university's tax-exempt status been revoked before? Yes, after a legal fight that spanned years. Bob Jones University in South Carolina lost its federal tax exemption in 1976 because of its policies banning interracial dating. Following a legal challenge, the decision was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983. The university dropped the policy in 2000 and regained its tax benefits in 2017. What's the benefit of Harvard's tax-exempt status? Under the US tax code, Harvard's contribution to society – education and research – qualifies it for tax-free status, alongside around 1,700 other colleges in the country that also operate as nonprofits. Tax exemptions afford universities like Harvard valuable advantages. Donors to tax-exempt organizations can write off their contributions as tax deductions, and Harvard typically raises more than US$1 billion annually in such donations. Harvard also sells bonds that pay interest that's exempt from federal taxes. The school doesn't pay traditional property taxes on buildings used for educational purposes, instead making voluntary payments to its host cities, Cambridge and Boston. How have other colleges and universities reacted to pressure from Trump? In March and April, the Trump administration also issued freezes on federal funding for other elite universities, including Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania, citing noncompliance with demands for policy changes and alleged failures to address antisemitism. Columbia's response was starkly different from Harvard's. On March 21, Columbia announced it would comply with the administration's demands to start negotiations on restoring $400 million in frozen funding. Among other concessions, the school said it would ban the use of masks during campus protests, hire 36 'special officers' with the power to make arrests, and place its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies department under increased oversight. On April 22, more than 200 presidents and other leaders of academic institutions signed a joint letter opposing 'undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses' and 'the coercive use of public research funding'. BLOOMBERG Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sandoval signs on to letter objecting to Trump's higher ed interference
The AAC&U letter 'refers to the essential role that our colleges and universities play in our society in educating students to sustain our democracy," said former Gov. Brian Sandoval. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Former Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, who currently serves as president of the University of Nevada, Reno, is one of 435 university and college presidents and chancellors to sign on to a letter protesting the 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American education.' The letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), which is clearly directed at President Donald Trump without mentioning him by name, opposes 'undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.' The AAC&U letter, Sandoval said via email, 'refers to the essential role that our colleges and universities play in our society in educating students to sustain our democracy, ensuring that faculty and staff have academic freedom and that our campuses in general remain places where the individual freedoms of all people are not curtailed or used as a means for punishment.' The message also 'affirms the multitude of benefits that further all segments of our world through the work that comes from public research funding,' Sandoval said. Last week, Trump froze $2.2 billion in research funding designated for Harvard University, which refused to capitulate to the president's political demands, 'including federal audits of Harvard's programs, agreements to screen international students for their beliefs, and the installation of administrators who will ensure the White House's demands are carried out,' the Harvard Crimson reported. Harvard is suing the Trump administration. And earlier this week Trump signed a slew of executive orders on education, including one that aims to 'overhaul' college accreditation. During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to fire 'radical Left accreditors,' claiming they 'have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.' 'We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight,' says the AAC&U letter. 'However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses. We will always seek effective and fair financial practices, but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.' Four Nevada institutions – UNR, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), Nevada State University (NSU), and the College of Southern Nevada (CSN) – are members of AAC&U. As of Wednesday, NSU President DeRionne Pollard had not been asked to sign the letter, according to a spokesperson, who says Pollard is 'in the process of reviewing the public statement.' UNLV and CSN did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Nevada System of Higher Education said the System did not entertain signing the letter, and suggested it was for individual institutions only.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump wants to overhaul the way colleges receive federal student loans and grants as part of DEI crackdown
Trump signed an executive order aimed at changing the college accreditation process. Accreditors review colleges to determine if they can remain eligible to receive federal student aid. Trump's order said that some accreditors are signing off on colleges that teach woke ideologies. One of President Donald Trump's latest executive orders is aimed at tapping what he called his "secret weapon" to crack down on DEI initiatives at colleges and universities. Of the seven executive orders related to education that Trump signed on Wednesday, one was aimed at changing the college accreditation process. Accreditors are independent agencies that review colleges every few years to determine if they meet the necessary standards to continue receiving federal aid, including student achievement and diversity on campuses. If a college meets the accreditor's standards, it can take part in the billions of dollars of student loans and federal grants for low-income students that the Department of Education disburses each year. Trump's executive order said that accreditors have allowed schools to continue receiving federal funding based on their DEI standards and have "abused their enormous authority" by accrediting schools that engage in "ideological overreach." "America's higher education accreditation system is broken," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement, adding that accreditors push schools "in ideological directions when they should be focused on core subjects." "The result is more bureaucracy, less innovation, sprawling DEI administrative complexes, and burdensome oversight by unaccountable accreditors rather than state education leaders and duly appointed governing board members," McMahon said. The order directs McMahon to monitor and potentially terminate accreditors who she finds are violating civil rights law by granting accreditation to colleges with DEI initiatives. It also directs McMahon, in partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services, to investigate DEI at medical schools that receive federal funding. Trump has previously called college accreditation his "secret weapon" to overhaul higher education in his vision. In a campaign video from 2023, Trump said that he will "fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics." "We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once and for all," he said. It's unclear how McMahon will move forward with implementing the executive order. It was accompanied by six other orders related to education, including one to boost the number of apprenticeships in the US, and another aimed at educating students on artificial intelligence. The move comes amid Trump's broader plans to reshape the US education system. He has launched dozens of investigations into both K-12 and higher education institutions over practices that don't align with the administration's beliefs, like diversity policies. More broadly, Trump signed an executive order calling for the entire Department of Education to be eliminated. Some advocates criticised Trump's moves to reshape accreditation. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement that Trump is "weaponizing the accreditation process to gain the leverage he seeks." Contact this reporter via email at asheffey@ or Signal at asheffey.97. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely. Read the original article on Business Insider
Business Insider
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Trump wants to overhaul the way colleges receive federal student loans and grants as part of DEI crackdown
One of President Donald Trump 's latest executive orders is aimed at tapping what he called his "secret weapon" to crack down on DEI initiatives at colleges and universities. Of the seven executive orders related to education that Trump signed on Wednesday, one was aimed at changing the college accreditation process. Accreditors are independent agencies that review colleges every few years to determine if they meet the necessary standards to continue receiving federal aid, including student achievement and diversity on campuses. If a college meets the accreditor's standards, it can take part in the billions of dollars of student loans and federal grants for low-income students that the Department of Education disburses each year. Trump's executive order said that accreditors have allowed schools to continue receiving federal funding based on their DEI standards and have "abused their enormous authority" by accrediting schools that engage in "ideological overreach." "America's higher education accreditation system is broken," Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement, adding that accreditors push schools "in ideological directions when they should be focused on core subjects." "The result is more bureaucracy, less innovation, sprawling DEI administrative complexes, and burdensome oversight by unaccountable accreditors rather than state education leaders and duly appointed governing board members," McMahon said. The order directs McMahon to monitor and potentially terminate accreditors who she finds are violating civil rights law by granting accreditation to colleges with DEI initiatives. It also directs McMahon, in partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services, to investigate DEI at medical schools that receive federal funding. Trump has previously called college accreditation his "secret weapon" to overhaul higher education in his vision. In a campaign video from 2023, Trump said that he will "fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics." "We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once and for all," he said. It's unclear how McMahon will move forward with implementing the executive order. It was accompanied by six other orders related to education, including one to boost the number of apprenticeships in the US, and another aimed at educating students on artificial intelligence. The move comes amid Trump's broader plans to reshape the US education system. He has launched dozens of investigations into both K-12 and higher education institutions over practices that don't align with the administration's beliefs, like diversity policies. More broadly, Trump signed an executive order calling for the entire Department of Education to be eliminated. Some advocates criticised Trump's moves to reshape accreditation. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement that Trump is "weaponizing the accreditation process to gain the leverage he seeks."
