Latest news with #anti-Harvard
Boston Globe
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Judge in Harvard funding lawsuit calls Trump administration's arguments ‘a bit mind-boggling'
Advertisement Harvard alumni rally outside a Boston court where Harvard University will argue against the Trump administration's funding cuts 'The consequences for that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs said. Harvard has argued the Trump administration violated its constitutional rights and that the cuts are a significant blow to critical scientific research. Michael Velchik, a Department of Justice attorney appearing on behalf of the government, argued that the government has the right to cancel Harvard's grants because of its determination that Harvard has failed to root out antisemitism on campus, which he said is a priority of the Trump administration. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs, who said she is Jewish and agreed that there were some missteps on campus, pressed Velchik to connect the concerns about antisemitism with the cancellation of funds and why the administration could make wholesale cuts instead of making decisions grant-by-grant. Advertisement After Harvard publicly resisted the Trump administration's demands in April, The case has enormous consequences not just for Harvard — the university says the Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer representing Harvard, argued Monday that the government's termination of the university's research grants violated Harvard's First Amendment rights. He pointed to the Trump administration's Lehotsky said that the case is 'about the federal government's control over the inner-workings of America's oldest institution of higher education.' Harvard has also argued that the Trump administration skirted a legal process to cancel funding under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, which prohibits discrimination 'on the basis of race, color, or national origin.' Lehotsky at one point quoted 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards,' a line from the Queen of Hearts in the book 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,' to illustrate how he believes the government took action before legally justifying its decisions. Advertisement The Trump administration knew that process was available to try and cancel funds, but chose not to follow it. Velchik, meanwhile, said that the government was not using the Title VI process in this case and argued that the administration had the authority under federal regulations regarding grants. Because of that, Velchik argued that the case should be tried in federal claims court as opposed to federal district court, which Burroughs sharply questioned. Burroughs is a familiar face for Harvard. She is presiding over the university's other high-profile case against the Trump administration, which challenges the government's efforts to bar Harvard from hosting international students. Burroughs has blocked those efforts until the case is decided, and the government has The judge also In a post on his social media network Truth Social, President Trump said Monday that Burroughs is 'a TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country,' an example of Trump's Advertisement On Monday, Burroughs also heard from lawyers representing As the hearing wrapped up around noon, dozens of Harvard students, faculty, and alumni gathered outside of the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in support of the university and its researchers. The rally was organized by the Crimson Courage, a group of Harvard alumni that has called on Harvard to Community organizer and Harvard alumnus Lew Finfer, who helped coordinate the protest, said the funding cuts not only have disastrous consequences for scientific research, but also for families whose lives were directly impacted by studies focused on cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. 'Having family ... who have had cancer and died of cancer and have Alzheimer's, the fact that people are trying to do something about it — [the research] always feels personal, as it would to anyone if they heard heard about these things," Lew said. 'It's not just research,' Finfer added. It's people's lives.' James McAffrey, 22, a Harvard undergraduate who co-founded Advertisement 'I haven't had research funding cut. I'm not at risk of being deported,' he said Monday. 'Which is why I feel even more committed to speaking out … because there's so many of my peers that can't say what they think and that's not right in an America built on freedom of speech.' Aidan Ryan can be reached at
Los Angeles Times
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Harvard seeks billions in funding restored at a pivotal hearing in its standoff with Trump
BOSTON — Harvard University appeared in federal court Monday in a pivotal case in its battle with the Trump administration, as the storied institution argued the government illegally cut $2.6 billion in federal funding. President Trump's administration has battered the nation's oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and antisemitism. Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond. A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday's hearing the case is about the government trying to control the 'inner workings' of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said. 'It's not about Harvard's conduct,' he said. 'It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard.' The case is before U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration's efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration's efforts. At Monday's hearing, Harvard asked her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the Trump administration has authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well attacks on Jewish students. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' said Velchik, a Harvard alumnus. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions 'mind-boggling.' She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' she said. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard's lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands from a federal antisemitism task force in April. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's suit. The task force's demands included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, Harvard was told to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. Harvard President Alan Garber says the university has made changes to combat antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' Monday's hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Several dozen alumni from Harvard joined students and faculty to decry the effort to cut the federal funds, holding up signs reading 'Hands Off Harvard,' 'Strong USA Needs Strong Harvard' and 'Our Liberty Is Not For Sale.' Anurima Bhargava, who wrote the amicus brief on behalf of more than 12,000 fellow Harvard alumni in the case, said the graduates spoke up because 'they understand what is at stake here and what the end goal of the government is, to take away our ability to pursue the mission, the freedom and the values that have been the cornerstone of higher education.' Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. 'Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future,' said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. 'This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponization of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans,' he said. The same day Harvard rejected the government's demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation and argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.' After Monday's hearing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to attack Burroughs, calling her a 'TOTAL DISASTER.' Burroughs was appointed by former President Barack Obama. 'Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America,' he wrote. 'Much of this money comes from the U.S.A., all to the detriment of other Schools, Colleges, and Institutions, and we are not going to allow this unfair situation to happen any longer.' Casey writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
21-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration and Harvard spar in court over massive funding freeze
The Trump administration and Harvard University on Monday traded barbs in a critical hearing in Boston over the government's threats to slash billions of dollars to the Ivy League school's federal research funding. Harvard accused the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights by freezing the funds to exercise authority over the school. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice argued that funding cuts are a means to protect against antisemitism, an issue that the DOJ claims Harvard had failed to appropriately address, violating the rights of its Jewish students. Both parties had sought a summary judgement from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, which would avoid a trial. However, there's no indication on when she will rule. The case could ultimately have larger implications on government oversight in schools. 'This is a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,' Steven P. Lehotsky, the attorney for Harvard, said. Lehotsky also said that the case isn't about a breach of contract. 'This case is about so much more for Harvard and for higher education," he said. Burroughs did not rule from the bench, but told the court that she would get to a decision as quickly as she could. Harvard is pushing for the ruling to come down no later than early September, the deadline to file grant paperwork for next year. During the hearing, the parties sparred over whether antisemitism on campus justified the removal of grant funding. Harvard did admit that there was an 'antisemitism problem,' adding that the school had taken actions to combat it. But Lehotsky argued that the issue is 'not germane to funding of Alzheimer's research,' for example. Burroughs, an Obama-appointee, pressed the DOJ, pointing out that she is Jewish, and asked how cutting off funding could help fight antisemitism. 'The choice was that the government does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction,' said Michael Velchik, attorney for the Trump administration. The government also argued that it has a right to cancel the terms of its grant contract if the school wasn't meeting policy priorities. However, Burroughs said that the government did not adequately prove that Harvard wasn't meeting those requirements. Velchik also took issue with what he perceived as the framing of Harvard's claims. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' For months, the Ivy League institution and the Trump administration have been locked in a tense back-and-forth. In April, Harvard refused to adhere to a set of demands issued by the administration's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The list of 10 demands included making sweeping reforms to policies about whom the university can hire and admit, and subjecting the ideologies of faculty members to an audit approved by the government. In response, the task force announced that it would slash more than $2 billion in grants. Harvard hit back with the lawsuit, accusing the administration of seeking 'unprecedented and improper' control of the school. As tensions continued to build, the administration further ordered its federal agencies to end their contracts with the school weeks later. The contracts totaled roughly $100 million. Most recently, Harvard drew backlash for quietly renaming the diversity, equity and inclusion offices of several of its graduate schools. The Harvard Divinity School, for example, swapped its diversity office with an Office of Community and Belonging at the beginning of July. Some critics saw the move as an effort to 'cave' to the Trump administration's demands. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
NBC News
21-07-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Trump administration and Harvard spar in court in case over massive funding freeze
The Trump administration and Harvard University on Monday traded barbs in a critical hearing in Boston over the government's threats to slash billions of dollars in the Ivy League school's federal research funding. Harvard accused the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights by freezing funds, to exercise authority over the school. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice argued that funding cuts are a means to protect against anti-semitism, an issue that the DOJ claims the Ivy League school had failed to appropriately address, violating the rights of its Jewish students. Both parties had sought a summary judgement from U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, in which she would hand down a decision without the case going to trial. However, there's no indication on when she will rule. The case could ultimately have larger implications on government oversight in schools. 'This is a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.' Steven P. Lehotsky, the attorney for Harvard, said. Lehotsky also said that the case isn't about a breach of contract. 'This case is about so much more for Harvard and for higher education," he said. Burroughs did not rule from the bench, but told the court that she would get to a decision as quickly as she could. Harvard is pushing for the ruling to come down no later than early September, the deadline to file grant paperwork for next year. During the hearing, the parties sparred over whether antisemitism on campus justified the removal of grant funding. Harvard did admit that there was an 'antisemitism problem,' adding that the school had taken actions to combat it. But Lehotsky argued that the issue is 'not germane to funding of Alzheimer's research,' for example. Burroughs, an Obama-appointee, pressed the DOJ, pointing out that she is Jewish, and asked how cutting off funding could help fight anti-semitism. 'The choice was that the government does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction,' said Michael Velchik, attorney for the Trump administration. The government also argued that it has a right to cancel the terms of its grant contract if the school wasn't meeting policy priorities. However, Burroughs said that the government did not adequately prove that Harvard wasn't meeting those requirements. Velchik also took issue with what he perceived as the framing of Harvard's claims. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' For months, the Ivy League institution and the Trump administration have been locked in a tense back-and-forth. Harvard in April refused to adhere to a set of demands issued by the administration's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. The list of 10 demands included making sweeping reforms to policies about whom the university can hire and admit and subjecting the ideologies of faculty members to an audit approved by the government. In response, the task force announced that it would slash more than $2 billion in grants. Harvard hit back with the lawsuit, accusing the administration of seeking 'unprecedented and improper' control of the school. As tensions continued to build, the administration further ordered its federal agencies to end their contracts with the school weeks later. The amount in contracts totaled roughly $100 million. Most recently, Harvard drew backlash for quietly renaming the diversity, equity, and inclusion offices of several of its graduate schools. The Harvard Divinity School, for example, swapped its diversity office with an Office of Community and Belonging at the beginning of July. Some critics saw the move as an effort to 'cave' to the Trump administration's demands.
RTHK
24-06-2025
- Politics
- RTHK
Judge blocks yet another Trump anti-Harvard gambit
Judge blocks yet another Trump anti-Harvard gambit Graduates were in high spirits during a commencement exercise at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in May. File photo: Reuters A federal judge has blocked another effort by the Trump administration to keep international students from attending Harvard University, saying officials' 'misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution' threatened freedom of speech. The order on Monday from district judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves the ability of foreign students to travel to the United States for studies at Harvard while the case is decided. President Donald Trump has sought to cut off Harvard's enrollment of foreign students as part of a pressure campaign seeking changes to governance and policies at the Ivy League school. Administration officials have also cut more than US$2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status for the school Trump has derided as a hotbed of liberalism. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 foreign students to transfer or risk being in the United States illegally. The university called it illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies around campus protests, admissions, hiring and other issues. Burroughs temporarily had halted the action hours after Harvard sued and then granted an initial injunction on Friday. The latest injunction came on Monday in response to another move from Trump, who cited a different legal justification when he issued a June 4 proclamation blocking foreign students from entering the United States to attend Harvard. In her order, Burroughs said the case is about freedom of speech and freedom of thought. "Here, the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this administration's own views, threaten these rights," she wrote. Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. (AFP)
