Latest news with #TheHarvardCrimson
Time of India
3 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Why Trump wants Harvard to face a steeper penalty than Columbia in the federal funding standoff
Harvard faces greater pressure than Columbia in ongoing US funding negotiations The US President Donald Trump is pressing Harvard University to agree to a larger financial settlement than the $221 million deal struck with Columbia University, according to sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. The talks concern the restoration of over $2 billion in frozen federal research funds. The White House is reportedly using Columbia's agreement as a "template" and is seeking harsher terms from Harvard to signal a broader policy shift in federal oversight of elite universities. Trump is personally involved in the discussions and has instructed his team to ensure that Harvard's penalty exceeds Columbia's, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Columbia's deal sets a precedent Columbia University reached a settlement with the Trump administration earlier this week, agreeing to pay $221 million in exchange for the restoration of more than $400 million in previously frozen federal research funding. The settlement included $21 million to resolve a Title VII case and came with additional conditions. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, these conditions included the acceptance of a federally endorsed definition of antisemitism, a rollback of certain diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives identified as unlawful by the administration, a review of its Middle East studies curriculum, and new screening procedures for international students. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Saharanpur: 1 Trick to Reduce Belly Fat? Home Fitness Hack Shop Now Undo US Education Secretary Linda McMahon described the Columbia agreement as a "seismic shift" and referred to it as a "roadmap" for future university settlements, including the ongoing negotiations with Harvard, in an interview with CNN as cited by The Harvard Crimson. Funding freeze and legal disputes continue Harvard has had more than $2.7 billion in federal research funding frozen following a series of administrative and legal challenges initiated by the Trump administration. Since April, Harvard has faced investigations into foreign donations, its tax-exempt status, and student visa records. Multiple federal subpoenas have also been issued, according to The Harvard Crimson. The administration issued a formal finding in late June that Harvard was in violation of Title VI, citing delays in its response to campus antisemitism. Harvard is currently involved in a lawsuit regarding the suspension of federal grants and contracts. At a recent hearing, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs expressed scepticism over the government's rationale but has not yet ruled on the case. Negotiations remain ongoing and confidential As per The Harvard Crimson, while President Trump stated publicly that Harvard "wants to settle," the university has not confirmed the existence of any official talks. Internally, it has acknowledged discussions with donors and has challenged the administration's demands as unconstitutional in legal filings. T he two parties have exchanged several offers in recent weeks, and the administration continues to increase pressure. The Department of Homeland Security has issued subpoenas related to international student conduct, while the Department of State is examining Harvard's capacity to host J-1 visa holders. Meanwhile, the Department of Education has urged Harvard's accreditor to consider revoking its status. Preceding settlements and anticipated demands Prior to the Columbia agreement, the University of Pennsylvania also restored its federal funding without paying a financial penalty. Instead, it agreed to prohibit transgender women from competing in women's sports and to strip records and titles from former student Lia Thomas. Unlike Columbia and Harvard, the Pennsylvania case did not involve Title VI or Title VII violations, as noted by The Harvard Crimson. Although Harvard has yet to finalise an agreement, it has already adopted certain measures resembling concessions, including the adoption of the same antisemitism definition accepted by Columbia, the closure of DEI-related student offices, and administrative changes in its Middle East studies department. The White House has set a deadline of September 3 for the liquidation of financial obligations tied to the first wave of cancelled grants. Whether a settlement with Harvard will be reached before that date remains uncertain. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Mint
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Mint
In Katabasis, R.F. Kuang serves dark academia as literal hell
Dark academia is a sub-genre in fantasy fiction, often involving schools of magic, secret societies and evil experiments in the backdrop of a scholarly environment. But the darkest of dark academia novels is not fantasy at all—in Donna Tartt's The Secret History, the darkness comes not from magic but from human frailty. R.F. Kuang's much-awaited novel Katabasis (HarperCollins India) has much in common with Tartt's—ambitious, jealous, secretive academics; classical allusions; a growing grimness. But it's a hardcore fantasy novel that does something daring: it takes dark academia to its logical conclusion, literal hell. 'I am getting close to the end of a draft of 'Katabasis,' which comes out in 2025. It's another fantasy novel…," Kuang had told The Harvard Crimson back in 2023. 'It started as this cute, silly adventure novel about like, 'Haha, academia is hell.' And then I was writing it and I was like, 'Oh, no, academia is hell.'" Even without this useful cue card, I could tell that's where this novel—part satire, part adventure tale—was going with within a few pages. Set in an alternate universe where magic is an acknowledged though increasingly suspect force, Katabasis (which, in Greek mythology, refers to a hero's descent into the underworld) begins in Cambridge University, which has a department of 'analytic magick" ruled over by the talented and somewhat unscrupulous Professor Jacob Grimes. When Professor Grimes dies a gruesome death during a magical experiment, his PhD students Alice Law and Peter Murdoch decide to perform some forbidden and extremely risky magic of their own to descend into hell and fetch their adviser—so that he can sign their recommendation letters. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds—finishing a PhD, a culmination of years of tedium and insanely hard work, can seem like a matter of life and death to those brave enough to aim for it—and students of analytic magick have the added pressure of needing to find their footing in a world that scorns their discipline (like, say, students of literature in the real world today). Kuang does not shy away from drawing attention to the absurdity inherent in the situation. The most esoteric and philosophical descriptions of magic are bookended by ruminations on what the actual practice of it in academia entails—publishing papers, squabbling with peers for conference seats, vying for fellowships, gossip, backbiting and bitchiness. 'Success in this field demanded a forceful, single-minded capacity for self-delusion. Alice could tip over her world and construct planks of belief from nothing. She believed that finite quantities would never run out, that time could loop back on itself, and that any damage could be repaired," writes Kuang. In the same breath, she adds: 'She believed that academia was a meritocracy, that hard work was its own reward… that department pettiness could not touch you, so long as you kept your head down and did not complain." Talk about being delulu. It is an immutable law of fantasy novels that no matter how absurd the premise sounds, notwithstanding what the fantastic elements are an allegory of, the narrative has to be convincing enough for the reader to be enthralled by the hero's journey. We know that the predicaments Swift's Gulliver finds himself in are stand-ins for the evils in British society and politics, but we still care what happens to Gulliver. Susanna Clarke's astounding Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is a send-up of Victorian-era social structures, but it has edge-of-the-seat tension. Katabasis pulls this off, but only to a certain extent. It reminded me a few times of Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, a treatise on the history of philosophy thinly veiled as a novel, in which the stakes never quite feel high enough—though Sophie, like Alice in Katabasis (and her namesake from Lewis Carroll's work, signposted by the author early), have many thrilling adventures and near-escapes. Still, Kuang has dreamt up a fresh version of hell that feels both unfamiliar and not. Spoiler alert: it manifests itself to Alice and Peter as a university, with its eight courts or circles representing one aspect of academia: a sinister library that initially seems enchanting but is ultimately an exercise in tedium, a student residence with continuous, mind-numbing sex, and so on. Our protagonists chart hell using the accounts of Dante, Orpheus and, in an admirable intellectual stretch, T.S. Eliot—Kuang posits that The Wasteland is basically a description of hell—taking them as literal descriptions rather than allegory. The book is endlessly inventive, much like Kuang's most celebrated novel, Babel, again an epic fantasy about a group of magicians in an alternate Oxford that is ultimately a critique of colonialism. Kuang is a very skilled writer who can layer these multiple, complex themes and narratives into coherent plots (though sometimes at the cost of character ) that are immensely readable and fun in spite of their length and denseness. Still, her best work, according to me, is the relatively slighter Yellowface, a contemporary novel about publishing that satirises the industry's penchant for trending ideas and themes. It is her most self-aware work, in a way that doesn't draw attention to its cleverness like Babel and Katabasis often do. Read this genre-defying, intellectually stimulating and often weird novel for its story, then, especially the glimpses of life before hell for its protagonists when they grapple with more mundane challenges than crossing a river of eternal oblivion. Hell is other people, said Sartre. No, hell is a college, says Kuang. The novel is forthcoming in August.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration floated unprecedented plan to seize control over Harvard, internal memo reveals
Harvard memo reveals how Trump aimed to reshape US higher education system The Trump administration privately circulated a confidential memo in early April outlining an extensive plan to exert federal control over Harvard University, including the possibility of placing a lien on all university assets and eliminating specific academic and student support programs, according to documents recently disclosed in a court filing, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Dated April 3, the four-page memo was marked 'Privileged and Confidential' and sent to Harvard's legal team the same day a public letter from the White House threatened to cut off $9 billion in federal funding unless Harvard implemented sweeping reforms. While the public letter included broad categories of institutional change, the internal memo provided a more detailed roadmap of proposed federal interventions. Memo included governance changes and asset controls The internal document proposed a series of governance reforms aimed at increasing federal influence over Harvard's leadership, according to The Harvard Crimson. These included setting a minimum requirement of 15 years of 'acceptable leadership experience' for future Harvard presidents, a policy that would have excluded former president Claudine Gay and interim president Alan M. Garber. The memo also suggested placing Harvard's academic departments under receivership and appointing a federally approved senior provost to oversee reforms. Programs identified for potential federal oversight included Jewish Studies, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, and Ethnicity, Migration, Rights in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS); Religion and Public Life at the Harvard Divinity School; and the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights at the Harvard School of Public Health. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like ACE Nest Yamuna Expressway – Affordable Luxury Awaits Ace Noida Book Now Undo Plans to dismantle DEI efforts and regulate student groups As reported by The Harvard Crimson, the memo called for the elimination of all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and a ban on protest masks. It also targeted the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, which supports minority and first-generation students, recommending its elimination. The Trump administration also proposed using trademark law to penalize unrecognized student groups using Harvard's name, such as Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine. It recommended holding recognized organizations accountable if they shared members with unrecognized groups. The memo referred to these actions as an 'augmented Columbia accountability ask,' referencing similar interventions at Columbia University. Internal proposals preceded April 11 demands The April 11 letter — which Trump administration officials later stated was sent in error — shocked Harvard officials, but the memo indicates the university had already been informed of the scope of possible federal action days earlier, according to The Harvard Crimson. After receiving the memo, Harvard continued talks with the federal government for over a week, until the April 11 letter formalized many of the proposals. Some proposals in the memo were never made public in official correspondence, including placing a lien on Harvard assets, abolishing the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Faculty Council, and launching a 'Legacy of Antisemitism' initiative modeled after Harvard's slavery reparations program. Additional report proposed conservative academic center and suspensions As reported by The Harvard Crimson, a separate undated 10-page report, released with the court filing, proposed creating a Center for Antisemitism Research co-led by Harvard Chabad and Hillel. It called for Harvard to suspend student government operations for five years, sever ties with Palestinian institutions, and establish a conservative academic center modeled after the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. It remains unclear whether Harvard ever received the report. Neither the Trump administration nor Harvard has publicly confirmed its involvement in the document's creation, and the White House declined to comment, The Harvard Crimson reported. Since April, Harvard has renamed DEI offices across its schools and reduced commitments to underrepresented hiring. According to The Harvard Crimson, it is also in discussions with donors and Harvard Corporation members about building a conservative academic center. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Judge Burroughs's skepticism marks a turning point in the US-Harvard funding clash
Harvard's $2.6 billion clash with US government faces key court scrutiny A federal court hearing on the lawsuit between Harvard University and the US government over a $2.6 billion funding freeze saw pointed questioning from United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, casting doubt on the administration's justification for the freeze. The case, which could determine the future of Harvard's research funding, centers on allegations that the university failed to address antisemitism on campus. At the hearing held in a packed courtroom in Boston, Burroughs pressed government attorney Michael K. Velchik on how the administration's decision to halt billions in research funding was tied to its stated goal of combating antisemitism at Harvard. The lawsuit has become a central point in a broader legal and political standoff between Harvard and President Donald J. Trump's administration, which has accused the university of permitting antisemitism and failing to uphold civil rights protections. Judge questions link between speech and research funding According to The Harvard Crimson, Judge Burroughs said during the hearing, "They're not funding speech, they're funding research. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like A genetic disorder that is damaging his organs. Help my son Donate For Health Donate Now Undo And you're tying that research to speech." She expressed skepticism about whether concerns about antisemitism could justify such steep funding cuts to the university's research enterprise. Velchik, representing the government, argued that the cuts were in response to pro-Palestine protests and incidents including the vandalism of the John Harvard statue after the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. Velchik also said that the government was responding to complaints from students, donors, and law enforcement, and asserted that federal agencies had the right to redirect funds when grantee goals no longer aligned with government priorities. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, Burroughs responded that such a justification would allow the government to cancel grants "even if their termination violated the Constitution," calling the implications "staggering. " Harvard accuses the administration of First Amendment violations Harvard's legal team described the Trump administration's actions as unconstitutional. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, argued that the government's funding freeze was "a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment," as quoted by The Harvard Crimson. The university has claimed the funding freeze was retaliatory, tied to its refusal to accept policy changes demanded by the administration. Funding freeze follows administration demands The funding freeze followed an April 11 letter from the government, mistakenly sent to Harvard leadership, which outlined a series of demands. These included external audits of academic departments, changes to hiring and admissions practices, elimination of diversity programs, and regular compliance reports. Harvard President Alan M. Garber rejected the demands, calling them "assertions of power, unmoored by the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard," as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Wider impact on research and student access The freeze has affected research projects across the university, including work on cancer treatments and other scientific initiatives. Harvard has implemented cost-cutting measures, layoffs, and hiring freezes. It has also sued the Trump administration a second time over visa restrictions and access to a federal database, which affected international student enrollment. Next steps in the lawsuit Judge Burroughs has not issued a final ruling but said a decision would come quickly. Harvard has requested a ruling by September 3, the government's deadline for submitting grant termination paperwork, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. Although settlement talks are ongoing, Harvard's faculty association, the American Association of University Professors, has requested to continue its separate legal challenge in case Harvard reaches an agreement before a final ruling is made. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard challenges US funding cuts in $3 billion legal battle with Trump administration Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit. The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight. Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding. Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants. Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding. The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants. Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze. Key Information Details Amount frozen Over $2.2 billion Total funds at stake Nearly $3 billion Agencies involved 11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS) Legal claims First Amendment, APA, Title VI Judge Allison D. Burroughs Court location Boston, Massachusetts Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus. Ongoing impact and future implications The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants. The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement. Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
