Separating Church And State: Will Harvard Save American Democracy?

In the battle to keep the Church of Harvard separate from the State of Trump, Harvard will prevail

By Anil Madan

Harvard College was founded in 1636. Two years later, John Harvard, an English Puritan Minister in the Colonies, died. He left a bequest to Harvard which included 400 books in his library.

Harvard was founded long before, seven score years before, the United States of America came into existence. In 1650, the Massachusetts legislature granted a charter to the Harvard Corporation and designating it the President and Fellows of Harvard College. In 1780, the Massachusetts Constitution went into effect and recognized Harvard as a university.

Trump vs. Harvard Administration. Pic – YouTube

On Friday, a week ago, the Trump administration sent a letter to the President of Harvard and Penny Pritzker, a member of the Harvard Corporation who refers to herself as “Senior Fellow” stating that the United States has “invested” in Harvard University’s operations “because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence.” But, the letter cautioned, “an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.”

Who would have thought that intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor are concerns that motivate the Trump administration? And if you know what “ideological capture” means, I’m interested in an explanation.

The letter, unprecedented in American history, and evoking something that Galileo Galilei might have had thrust upon him, declared that “Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.” The letter demanded that Harvard acquiesce to its demands as “an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s relationship with the federal government.” The letter then stated that its terms would be translated into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement, in other words, an agreement to agree on the agreement already agreed.

The letter was signed by representatives of the General Services Administration, the US Department of Health & Human Services, and the US Department of Education and set forth the following demands on Harvard:

• Governance and Leadership Reform. These included fostering clear lines of authority and accountability, reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty, and reducing forms of governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization.
• Merit-Based Hiring Reform. This means ceasing all forms of preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
• Merit-Based Admissions Reform. This is the same as above but with provisions for sharing data with the federal government and subjecting Harvard to federal audits.
• International Admissions Reform. This means preventing admission of students hostile to the American values and institutions described in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
• Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. This requires an external independent third party to audit the university’s achievements in promoting a “viewpoint diverse” student body and faculty. No standards are set forth.
• Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. This also required audits by an external party.
• Discontinuation of DEI or Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, practices.
• Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. These included investigation and discipline of students involved in past misconduct.
• Whistleblower Reporting and Protection.
• Transparency and Monitoring. This includes reporting immigration and related information to the Department of Homeland Security.

The legal counsel retained by Harvard replied to the government’s letter, pointing out that Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and bigotry of any kind and has made structural, programmatic and policy changes in that regard. The letter stressed that the government’s demands are unlawful and unconstitutional and declared: “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.”

My daughter who went to Barnard College which is part of Columbia University is furious that Columbia acquiesced to the administration’s demands, lamenting that she was even more furious that she had to say something nice about Harvard texted: “Great move by Harvard.” When we spoke later, she asked: “Do you think Harvard can save America?” I said I’d write about that.Read More… Become a Subscriber

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 18 April 2025