Undaunted in defense of academic freedom
Harvard needs support to do the right thing.
Harvard’s president Alan Garber apparently is not considering caving to outrageous demands from the Trump regime to sacrifice its academic independence, despite a story in the New York Times that now reads more like spoon-fed propaganda from the Trump regime. (The Times stood by its reporting.) Garber told Harvard faculty that “a deal with the Trump administration is not imminent and denied that the University is considering a $500 million settlement, according to three faculty members familiar with the matter,” the Harvard Crimson reported. Instead, the faculty members say Garber is looking to the courts, not a negotiated settlement.
Let’s hope that version is the accurate one. Courage has never been more needed from civil society, universities in particular. Whether it is CBS/Paramount or a batch of law firms or Ivy League schools, too many elites have chosen the path of least resistance in the face of authoritarian threats.
To settle Trump’s cooked-up claims, Columbia University agreed to a jaw-dropping set of requirements, including restrictions on hiring and administration of key departments, a curb on admission of foreign students, and vague rules that curtail First Amendment-protected activities. Columbia and Brown, another university that folded, also agreed to give the Trump regime “access to the standardized test scores and grade point averages of all applicants, including information about their race, a measure that could profoundly alter competitive college admissions.” Prospective students looking at the Ivy League schools should consider whether they want to attend an institution that cannot bear the obligation to defend academic freedom.
Fortunately, many voices are weighing in to encourage Garber not to fold. Nine prominent professors recently wrote to urge him to refuse to “cede authority to the government” to dictate personnel, hiring and admissions decisions. In an Harvard Crimson op-ed, two of the signatories, Ryan D. Enos and Steven Levitsky, wrote:
The authoritarian bargain on offer is a familiar one—history is littered with them. Harvard may get its research funding, just as businesses, law firms, and media companies may get their government contracts, approval of long-sought mergers, or the termination of lawsuits and investigations. But it comes with a steep price: acquiescence to a new regime, in a society that is less free....
The threat to American democracy is mounting. The Trump administration has assaulted democratic institutions—arresting opposition politicians, investigating critics, abducting people off the street, flouting due process, and politicizing the military—more aggressively than Hugo Chávez, Viktor Orban, or Recep Tayyip Erdogan did in their first year in office. To cede academic freedom at such a moment would be a historic error.
Earlier this summer, the esteemed American Association of University Women (AAUW) sent out a more generalized appeal berating the Trump regime for attacking higher education. (“AAUW urges Congress, the higher education community, and civil rights advocates to push back forcefully against these political overreaches. Our nation’s future depends on higher education that is accessible, inclusive, and free from political interference.”)
Among the most compelling statements urging that Harvard fight on came from Leon Botstein, president of Bard College and the son of Holocaust survivors. Speaking to The Forward during a trip to Germany, his message pierced through the noise to rebuke Trump’s crew for manipulating Jews and their fear of antisemitism. He denounced Trump’s antisemitism excuse to launch an attack on higher education:
It’s completely preposterous, in my view, to defend the attack on Harvard because you’re fighting antisemitism. There’s nothing more hypocritical than that position. I actually think the government is playing out a classic antisemitic routine. Blame it on the Jews—the reason that all the research funding is gone is because of the Jews....
The punishment that the president is trying to wreak on these research universities is catastrophic and uncalled for, and has nothing to do with antisemitism.... We’ve always benefited from the rule of law and the protection of dissent, and not the use of government power to protect us. Spare me.
Botstein’s moral clarity in debunking the antisemitism dodge should resonate with Jews and non-Jews alike. The fight against antisemitism is too important to become a cudgel for MAGA’s bad-faith assault on democracy.
If academic voices are not persuasive enough, Harvard should also consider that MAGA bullies will not remain in power forever. Fourteen House and Senate Democrats recently weighed in, vowing to “consider launching a congressional investigation into any major settlement between the University and the Trump administration.” Garber, they hope, would not be deceived by any “deal” with Trump. They warned, “Capitulating to politically motivated demands from the Executive Branch risks setting a precedent that could severely undermine the independence not only of Harvard but of educational institutions nationwide.” They added: “It would also signal to other universities that politically driven coercion—rather than legal merit—is a viable mechanism for extracting compliance.”
These statements from academics and lawmakers reflect a healthy determination to stiffen Harvard’s spine and remind its leadership that its fight is not about a single school but about academic, and ultimately political freedom, writ large.
The clarion call from undaunted champions of academic freedom (the nine Harvard professors, Democrats in Congress, the AAUW, and Botstein) do a great service in reminding all of us that academic freedom is closely linked to democracy and that negotiating with a political extortionist is fruitless. In helping Garber to remain stalwart, advocates of academic freedom help to bolster Harvard, educate the public, and elevate the cause of intellectual freedom.
We salute the chorus of principled and eloquent voices pleading for Harvard to show moral courage. It takes a village to save a university—and a democracy.
If there's one thing we learned (or at least should have learned) from Munich in 1938, it's that trying to appease a bully only shows the bully that you can be intimidated. So appeasing bullies only encourages them to come back for more!
Bravo to Garber for standing up to the schoolyard bully
To think that the Times would cook up a grossly incorrect story--and one that is so easily falsifiable--is deeply disturbing.