America’s most prominent university, Harvard, is now fighting the Trump administration. This conflict marks the latest episode in what appears to be a new focus of the White House on higher education. Most recently, Columbia University gave in to some of the government’s demands to ensure continued funding.
The confrontation started when the Trump administration contacted Harvard to demand that it institute reforms based (at least partly) on Harvard’s perceived failure to deal with “[discrimination] against Jewish or Israeli students.”
Harvard made some changes but rejected other demands, calling them unreasonable, and in response, the Trump administration has threatened to freeze federal funding.
Now Harvard is fighting back with lawsuits. In its public-facing website about the conflict, Harvard features what sounds like an inspiring message by the institution’s president, Alan Garber:
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.
This sounds nice, but when you scroll down the site a bit further, you see what’s really at stake:
Without federal funding, this work [research] will come to a halt midstream, and researchers will lack necessary resources to finish ongoing projects or to finance new ones in the numerous fields Harvard supports…
Do you see the tension here? Harvard is upset that the government is trying to tell them what to say, while simultaneously demanding that it continue sending them money.
Of the $9 billion being threatened, not all goes immediately to Harvard. Some funding goes in grant form to students who then transmit it to the university in fees. Other grants go to researchers who share a portion (often more than half) with the university. But, regardless of the transmission mechanism, this funding is critical to Harvard’s current operations; otherwise, Trump’s threat would be inconsequential.
Is Harvard entitled to receive millions of taxpayer dollars, directly or indirectly? Are the wealthy administrators and faculty the proper owners of taxes paid by Americans of all economic classes?
In my view, no. Harvard has no right to tax dollars; therefore, it’s hardly an injustice for them to lose that funding.
Why is our government funding one of the most powerful institutions in America when it is sitting on a $53 billion endowment and while it receives donations from foreign governments?
It’s hard to feel bad for Harvard here. One of the oldest lessons in human history is that you have to be careful accepting generous gifts, whether directly or through employees or customers. Money comes with strings attached. Federal money is no different. When you tie your institution’s structure to the gifts of politicians, it’s strange to act surprised when the government leaders expect something (even if it’s unreasonable) in return.
Perhaps the court will rule in Harvard’s favor in this case, but if the voters who elected Trump also elect a Congress that votes to defund Harvard, what will the institution do then?
If institutions like Harvard want to live without fear of being defunded, it’s time for them to let go of the federal government’s hand and walk on their own. Other institutions already do this. Hillsdale College in Michigan and Grove City College in Pennsylvania both eschew federal funding explicitly because they dislike the control the funding gives the government over free inquiry.
These organizations are immune to pressure precisely because they turn down the kind of money Trump is now threatening to take from Harvard. They have the freedom to decide their institutions’ path.
Whoever lives by funding will die by funding. There’s no such thing as a free grant.
