Harvard, Trump, and Decency
My reaction to Trump's election by an absolute majority was to say "they'll do it" and refrain from writing about the domestic life of the United States. But I can't maintain my resolution. It wasn't rational. We Europeans depend too much on that domestic life. Besides, it wasn't an emotionally sustainable decision for me. I've lived in the United States for more than a quarter of a century. My children have been born. I worked at three universities: Minnesota, Berkeley, and Harvard. I love all three, and all three are among the ten Trump has singled out for special attention in his infamous assault on academia. I'll focus on Harvard, because of its prominence and because it's the first to stand up and raise the banner of resistance.
The first attack fell on Columbia University (New York), which, to a greater or lesser extent, bowed to the Trump administration's demands. A victory that encouraged it. About ten days ago, it sent 10 demands to Harvard, threatening to cut public research funding. Harvard responded that it would not comply, and its president published an open letter explaining why. The government is currently questioning $9 billion in research grants. It's also questioning tax breaks. Harvard's resilience will be great—its endowment (endowment) is valued at more than $50 billion—and the legal battle will be epic. Anti-intellectual resentment that has fueled Trumpism is justified in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.
The demands on Harvard include governance reforms, government oversight of faculty hiring and student admissions, a political test for international student admissions, ensuring "diversity of viewpoints" on the faculty (will creationists have to be hired?), and the elimination of alumni associations. The communication ends with: "We look forward to your immediate cooperation." A genuine intervention. Private universities can teach, who can admit or hire, and what areas of study and research they can pursue" (I wrote about this in a January 2024 article, "University Freedoms"). Even so, Harvard will have to obey the law and win the legal battle. Today, the Supreme Court is conservative and has already overturned the 1964 civil rights law that prohibited discrimination against African Americans. It has established that universities cannot apply racial considerations of any kind to student admissions.
Perhaps the debate doesn't emphasize enough the individual rights of faculty. Competitive grants are won by researchers, regardless of whether they are managed by the university. Conditioning them on the overall performance of the university questions the foundations of the university institution as a community of free scholars. For this reason, I believe Harvard's appeal to its private nature is unhelpful. Berkeley and Minnesota are public. This cannot make them, or their faculty, more vulnerable.
This isn't the first time a wave of repression has shaken the United States and its universities. The 1950-54 term saw Senator McCarthy's Witch Hunt. Ultimately, he failed to target a major institution: the armed forces. In six weeks of Senate debates—broadcast live on television—he discredited himself before the American people. The defeat was symbolized by one witness's remark: "Where's your decency, Senator?"Have you no sin of decency, senator?"Universities are also a great institution. Perhaps one day a college student will ask, "Where's your decency, President?" and, as in 1954, suddenly realize he's naked.