Latest news with #Columbia
Kuwait Times
30 minutes ago
- Politics
- Kuwait Times
Harvard University holds graduation in shadow of Trump threat
CAMBRIDGE: Harvard held its annual graduation ceremony Thursday as a federal judge considers the legality of punitive measures taken against the university by US President Donald Trump. Hundreds of robed students and academics squeezed onto the steps of the campus's main library as Trump piles unprecedented pressure onto the university, one of the most prestigious in the world. The president is seeking to ban Harvard from having foreign students, shredding its federal contracts, slashing its multibillion-dollar grants and challenging its tax-free status. The Ivy League institution has continually drawn Trump's ire while publicly rejecting his administration's repeated demands to give up control of recruitment, curricula and research choices. The government claims Harvard tolerates anti-Semitism and liberal bias. 'Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect, and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper,' Trump said Wednesday. Harvard president Alan Garber got a huge cheer Thursday when he mentioned international students attending the graduation with their families, saying it was 'as it should be'—but Garber did not mention the Trump fight directly. Garber has acknowledged that Harvard does have issues with anti-Semitism and that it has struggled to ensure that a variety of views can be safely heard on campus. Ahead of the ceremony, members of the Harvard band sporting distinctive crimson blazers and brandishing their instruments filed through the narrow streets of Cambridge, Massachusetts—home to the elite school, America's oldest university. In front of a huge stage, hundreds of chairs were laid out in a grassy precinct that was closed off to the public as the event got under way. Students wearing black academic gowns toured through Cambridge with family members taking photographs. Madeleine Riskin-Kutz, a Franco-American classics and linguistics student at Harvard, said some students were planning individual acts of protest against the Trump policies. 'The atmosphere (is) that just continuing on joyfully with the processions and the fanfare is in itself an act of resistance,' the 22-year-old said. Court battles Garber has led the legal fightback in US academia after Trump targeted several prestigious universities—including Columbia, which made sweeping concessions to the administration in an effort to restore $400 million of withdrawn federal grants. A federal judge in Boston will on Thursday hear arguments over Trump's effort to exclude Harvard from the main system for sponsoring and hosting foreign students. Judge Allison Burroughs has temporarily paused the policy which would have ended Harvard's ability to bring students from abroad who currently make up 27 percent of its student body. Harvard has since been flooded with inquiries from foreign students seeking to transfer to other institutions, Maureen Martin, director of immigration services, said Wednesday. 'Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,' Martin wrote in a court filing. Retired immigration judge Patricia Sheppard protested outside Harvard Yard on Wednesday, sporting a black judicial robe and brandishing a sign reading 'for the rule of law.' Basketball star and human rights campaigner Kareem Abdul-Jabbar addressed the class of 2025 for Class Day on Wednesday. 'When a tyrannical administration tried to bully and threaten Harvard to give up their academic freedom and destroy free speech, Dr Alan Garber rejected the illegal and immoral pressures,' he said, comparing Garber to civil rights icon Rosa Parks. — AFP
The Independent
6 hours ago
- General
- The Independent
Mahmoud Khalil claims he was detained by Trump admin after right-wing group tipped off ICE and Ted Cruz
There is evidence to 'strongly suggest' that federal officials acted on tips and lobbying from right-wing and pro-Israel advocacy groups to detain Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil in March, according to a Freedom of Information Act request filed Thursday. 'For years, these anti-Palestinian doxxing groups have served as agents of repression, weaponizing inflammatory rhetoric and conflating criticism of Israel with hate speech in order to chill activism for Palestinian rights,' Ayla Kadah, an attorney the Center for Constitutional Rights, which is representing Khalil as he appeals his case, said in a statement. 'Now, evidence seems to point to the Trump administration colluding with them,' she added. The FOIA request seeks information from federal offices involved in immigration enforcement and investigation, like the FBI and the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security. It accuses federal lawyers of relying on posts from online monitoring groups that claim to be tracking antisemitism, though some critics say the groups engage in unsafe doxxing campaigns. The Independent has contacted these agencies for comment. The FOIA request pays particular attention to the Zionist group Betar USA, and whether its calls to deport students influenced the effort to detain and deport Khalil. The advocacy group is known for publicly naming pro-Palestinian activists on social media and urging their deportation, and has claimed to have shared 'thousands' of targets with the Trump administration. (The administration has not publicly confirmed any contacts with the group.) Betar has also handed out mock pagers to pro-Palestine activists, a seeming reference to the likely Israeli exploding pager operation that killed both Hezbollah fighters and civilians. The FOIA request points to alleged ties between Betar and federal officials. Ross Glick, then the head of the group, has claimed he spoke with Senator Ted Cruz in the days before Khalil's March 8 arrest, as well as briefed Senator John Fetterman and aides for Senator James Lankford. 'I absolutely deny any involvement with this group whatsoever,' Senator Fetterman said in a statement to The Independent. 'I do not support private organizations coming up with deportation lists, and in any event, I would never participate or assist in that.' Betar shared a video of Glick briefly speaking with Fetterman at the Capitol in late 2024. The Independent has contacted the offices of Cruz and Lankford for comment. 'The correlation is clear, and not a coincidence: to date, not a single reported visa revocation and detention of an individual based on pro-Palestine activism occurred absent prior doxxing,' the FOIA request reads. The federal government does not accuse Khalil of breaking any laws; rather, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a rarely used, controversial provision of federal law to declare Khalil's activities could harm U.S. foreign policy interests and then stripped his green card. The FOIA request, in part, seeks to probe what kind of information the State Department used from federal officials in reaching this decision. The Independent filed a similar FOIA request shortly after Khalil's arrest, with no response thus far from federal officials. Khalil, who is married to a U.S. citizen and held legal permanent resident status at the time of his arrest, is currently being kept at a detention facility in Louisiana. He is challenging his imprisonment in immigration and federal court. This week, a federal judge in New Jersey held that the administration's decision to revoke Khalil's green card was likely unconstitutional, though the court stopped short of ordering Khalil's release. "The Secretary's determination deserves, and gets the highest respect,' Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote. 'But arbitrary enforcement can also be a danger, when one person is given the job, if his determination veers too far away from the standard set down by Congress. Here, the Secretary's did."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Opinion - Colleges must give up federal funding to achieve true intellectual freedom
The Trump administration's sudden cuts to federal research grants to Harvard, Columbia and other universities have rightly raised alarm. But restoring the pre-Trump status quo, as Harvard and many academics demand, will not safeguard intellectual freedom. Why not? Because the administration's actions are only a vile escalation of the infringement on intellectual freedom inherent in any system of federal funding. Both are destructive, and both must go. Start with the Trump administration. Under the pretext of combatting the real problem of antisemitism on campus — this from a president who dines with antisemites — the administration is demanding intellectual control over Harvard's faculty and student body. Harvard must submit to an audit of 'its student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity.' Specific departments including the Divinity and Medical schools will get special scrutiny to see if they 'reflect ideological capture.' Diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI programs must also end. Harvard must not admit any international student whom the government considers 'hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.' (Presumably foreign supporters of Jan. 6— that day of love — are exempt.) Harvard is right to balk at all this. It is right to declare that 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.' And a private university like Harvard could choose to ignore the administration's demands — but that means forfeiting federal research funding, which puts it at an unfair disadvantage when competing for students, faculty and donors with universities that continue to receive massive federal payouts. If Harvard and other private universities truly seek freedom, therefore, they should demand that federal research funding be phased out altogether. Harvard should argue that since all federal funding comes with some government strings attached, it infringes on intellectual freedom. Instead, Harvard is demanding more government funding and objecting only to the specific nature of the strings or to the way they are currently being pulled. For instance, Harvard does not challenge the government demanding that it do more to combat antisemitism, it simply laments that the present administration seems unwilling 'to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner.' Harvard does not object when administrations impose ideological goals it agrees with, such as the many DEI initiatives like that require grant applicants to submit 'diversity plans'; it only objects when it disagrees with the government's ideological goals. But universities cannot get around the fact that federal grants, by their nature, selectively fund certain ideas at the expense of others. The government picks intellectual winners and losers among private citizens, which is the exact opposite of intellectual freedom. How was Harvard awarded the billions of dollars that the Trump administration is now threatening to withdraw? Federal employees at agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment of the Humanities look through tens of thousands of grant applications every year and decide which private researchers will receive federal grants and which will not. Even in the best-case scenario, when federal bureaucrats try to proceed conscientiously, such a system creates increased conformity within an academic field. The bureaucrats will tend to defer to recognized experts in the field, which means established theories and methodologies are much more likely to receive federal support, making it difficult for intellectual minorities and innovators to compete. This plays out across the entire university, which is strongly incentivized to hire researchers likely to receive federal grants. In worse scenarios, bureaucrats actively pursue an ideological agenda, deliberately rewarding some viewpoints and penalizing others. This is a major cause of how DEI swept through the universities. And this is now what the Trump administration is nakedly claiming the power to do. Tellingly, in its latest harangue, the administration says it is punishing Harvard for crudely political reasons, including that 'Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country's history.' Intellectual freedom is the principle that all individuals have the right to think for themselves, to express their convictions on any subject, and to give their support, financial or otherwise, only to the ideas they choose. When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpointfor any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom. This is the injustice inherent in all government research grants. It is this that private universities like Harvard should now name and challenge. Instead, they fight for 'academic freedom,' which is actually the opposite of intellectual freedom. It asserts the right of universities and professors to teach, write and research whatever they see fit — and to do it at the taxpayer's expense. Trump's measures only replace 'academic freedom' with a worse, more authoritarian form of the same injustice: the license not of universities and professors but of the executive branch to dictate which ideas you will be forced to subsidize as a taxpayer. The threats to Harvard and Columbia should be a wake-up call for private universities and for all who care about intellectual freedom. The right path forward is neither to defend the Trump administration nor to demand a return to the pre-Trump status quo, but to phase out, gradually and impartially, all federal grants and subsidies. Make private universities private again. Let each of us, as individuals, decide which universities we will frequent and fund. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and a contributor to the recent book 'The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom.' Sam Weaver, M.A. in liberal arts, is an associate fellow at ARI who writes on education and intellectual freedom issues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Harvard President's Dig at Trump Met With Standing Ovation at Graduation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Harvard University President Alan Garber opened his remarks to the graduating class of 2025 on Thursday with praise for its students—domestic and foreign—after President Donald Trump's attempt to stop the school from enrolling international students. Newsweek reached out to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) via email for comment on Thursday. Why It Matters Trump and his administration have cracked down on Ivy League institutions, such as Harvard and Columbia, since retaking office in January. The White House has accused the universities of allowing antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian student protests. Among other things, the Trump administration initially withheld $400 million in federal funding from Columbia and said it would not release the funds unless the school changed its policies. DHS also terminated nearly $3 million in grants to Harvard after the university defied a list of demands that included discontinuing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, reforming student discipline policies and implementing a mask ban. The Trump administration also recently said it would pull the certification for Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), which allows the university to enroll international students. A judge issued a temporary restraining order to halt the new policy. Harvard President Alan Garber holds his heart in gratitude as he receives a standing ovation from the crowd gathered for graduation in Harvard Yard on May 28, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Harvard President Alan Garber holds his heart in gratitude as he receives a standing ovation from the crowd gathered for graduation in Harvard Yard on May 28, 2025, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Photo by Libby O'Neill/Getty Images What To Know During his commencement address, Garber welcomed family, friends and supporters of the graduating class. "And welcome, members of the Class of 2025. Members of the Class of 2025 from down the street, across the country, and around the world. Around the world, just as it should be," Garber continued according to a copy of the remarks from his office. The line was met with loud cheers and a standing ovation. Videos of the moment have also circulated online, sparking praise and backlash. Later in his address, according to the copy from his office, Garber noted that the graduates are "the hope of this institution embodied—living proof that our mission changes not only the lives of individuals but also the trajectories of communities that you will join, serve, and lead. May you carry the best of what Harvard is and does into the world that awaits you. May you chart a path for others to follow as you choose your own. And may your many destinations bring you joy, satisfaction, and peace." Speaking to reporters about the current status of the feud with Harvard on Wednesday, Trump said that the school is "getting their ass kicked." The New York Times reported that Trump's administration plans to cancel all federal contracts with the university, totaling nearly $100 million. What People Are Saying Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov, on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday: "When you deport young people and cancel the visas of their friends, you become public enemy number one very quickly." Fox News Media contributor Tomi Lahren, responding to Tarlov on X: "The sad thing is you think the audience of a Harvard graduation ceremony is representative of the American people/voters at large. WRONGO! Maybe that's why Democrats keep losing elections...." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Sunday: "Why isn't Harvard saying that almost 31% of their students are from FOREIGN LANDS, and yet those countries, some not at all friendly to the United States, pay NOTHING toward their student's education, nor do they ever intend to. "Nobody told us that! We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn't exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries. Harvard has $52,000,000, use it, and stop asking for the Federal Government to continue GRANTING money to you!" What Happens Next It is believed Trump will continue to fight the university in court and pull funding and grants if they do not come to a policy agreement.
The Hill
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Colleges must give up federal funding to achieve true intellectual freedom
The Trump administration's sudden cuts to federal research grants to Harvard, Columbia and other universities have rightly raised alarm. But restoring the pre-Trump status quo, as Harvard and many academics demand, will not safeguard intellectual freedom. Why not? Because the administration's actions are only a vile escalation of the infringement on intellectual freedom inherent in any system of federal funding. Both are destructive, and both must go. Start with the Trump administration. Under the pretext of combatting the real problem of antisemitism on campus — this from a president who dines with antisemites — the administration is demanding intellectual control over Harvard's faculty and student body. Harvard must submit to an audit of 'its student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity.' Specific departments including the Divinity and Medical schools will get special scrutiny to see if they 'reflect ideological capture.' Diversity, equity and inclusion or DEI programs must also end. Harvard must not admit any international student whom the government considers 'hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.' (Presumably foreign supporters of Jan. 6— that day of love — are exempt.) Harvard is right to balk at all this. It is right to declare that 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.' And a private university like Harvard could choose to ignore the administration's demands — but that means forfeiting federal research funding, which puts it at an unfair disadvantage when competing for students, faculty and donors with universities that continue to receive massive federal payouts. If Harvard and other private universities truly seek freedom, therefore, they should demand that federal research funding be phased out altogether. Harvard should argue that since all federal funding comes with some government strings attached, it infringes on intellectual freedom. Instead, Harvard is demanding more government funding and objecting only to the specific nature of the strings or to the way they are currently being pulled. For instance, Harvard does not challenge the government demanding that it do more to combat antisemitism, it simply laments that the present administration seems unwilling 'to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner.' Harvard does not object when administrations impose ideological goals it agrees with, such as the many DEI initiatives like that require grant applicants to submit 'diversity plans'; it only objects when it disagrees with the government's ideological goals. But universities cannot get around the fact that federal grants, by their nature, selectively fund certain ideas at the expense of others. The government picks intellectual winners and losers among private citizens, which is the exact opposite of intellectual freedom. How was Harvard awarded the billions of dollars that the Trump administration is now threatening to withdraw? Federal employees at agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and the National Endowment of the Humanities look through tens of thousands of grant applications every year and decide which private researchers will receive federal grants and which will not. Even in the best-case scenario, when federal bureaucrats try to proceed conscientiously, such a system creates increased conformity within an academic field. The bureaucrats will tend to defer to recognized experts in the field, which means established theories and methodologies are much more likely to receive federal support, making it difficult for intellectual minorities and innovators to compete. This plays out across the entire university, which is strongly incentivized to hire researchers likely to receive federal grants. In worse scenarios, bureaucrats actively pursue an ideological agenda, deliberately rewarding some viewpoints and penalizing others. This is a major cause of how DEI swept through the universities. And this is now what the Trump administration is nakedly claiming the power to do. Tellingly, in its latest harangue, the administration says it is punishing Harvard for crudely political reasons, including that 'Harvard hired failed Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, perhaps the worst mayors ever to preside over major cities in our country's history.' Intellectual freedom is the principle that all individuals have the right to think for themselves, to express their convictions on any subject, and to give their support, financial or otherwise, only to the ideas they choose. When government coercively seizes your money and uses it to subsidize some research program or viewpointfor any reason, it is violating your intellectual freedom. This is the injustice inherent in all government research grants. It is this that private universities like Harvard should now name and challenge. Instead, they fight for 'academic freedom,' which is actually the opposite of intellectual freedom. It asserts the right of universities and professors to teach, write and research whatever they see fit — and to do it at the taxpayer's expense. Trump's measures only replace 'academic freedom' with a worse, more authoritarian form of the same injustice: the license not of universities and professors but of the executive branch to dictate which ideas you will be forced to subsidize as a taxpayer. The threats to Harvard and Columbia should be a wake-up call for private universities and for all who care about intellectual freedom. The right path forward is neither to defend the Trump administration nor to demand a return to the pre-Trump status quo, but to phase out, gradually and impartially, all federal grants and subsidies. Make private universities private again. Let each of us, as individuals, decide which universities we will frequent and fund. Onkar Ghate, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and a contributor to the recent book 'The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom.' Sam Weaver, M.A. in liberal arts, is an associate fellow at ARI who writes on education and intellectual freedom issues.
