Harvard University’s decision to sue the federal government over the freezing of $2.2 billion in federal funding – and the actions of the Trump administration on higher education to date – has lit a fire in the field, with numerous college and university presidents indicating support for pushing back.

As of this writing, over 180 higher ed presidents have signed on to “A Call for Constructive Engagement” to “speak with one voice against the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education” and to “oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”

“With Harvard’s poor track record on free speech and academic freedom, it feels odd to celebrate it for its defense of those values,” said HxA Director of Policy Joe Cohn. “But Harvard’s lawsuit against the overzealous enforcement of Title VI is an important one that could determine whether America’s private institutions of higher education remain places where students and faculty are free to study, teach, and research without government interference.”

For a Free the Inquiry post on April 11, Cohn explained the legal problems with the Trump administration’s approach, including the failure to follow due process as laid out in federal regulations. Harvard’s suit names as a chief complaint the failure to follow procedures laid out in federal law, along with alleged violations of the institution’s First Amendment rights.

Cohn also noted “the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine means that the government cannot force institutions of higher education to agree to violate people’s constitutional rights – including the rights provided to them under the First Amendment. So the government can’t force Columbia or any other university to censor itself or censor the constitutionally-protected speech of faculty or students.”

“Meaningful enforcement of Title VI is clearly warranted,” said Cohn, “but cutting corners is unlawful and destructive to institutions and the important educational and research functions the world needs them to perform.”

The Washington Post reported today, “Although some members of the [Trump] administration have said their letter of demands sent this month was issued by mistake, [Harvard President Alan] Garber said, other statements and actions suggest otherwise: In addition to a freeze of $2.2 billion in federal funding, the government has considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students and said that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s tax-exempt status.”

In his response to actions taken against Harvard, HxA President John Tomasi objected to the governmental overreach but called on Harvard to pair “its bold defense of independence with an equally honest reckoning about the internal failures that made it vulnerable to such scrutiny in the first place.”

The pressure being put on universities has opened a dialogue and willingness to self-scrutinize that we have never seen at this level. It offers an opportunity for institutional leaders to ask key questions, including:

• Are we observing a policy of restraining from institutional commentary on divisive issues except where they specifically and directly impact our institution’s mission? (This post from our Director of Research, Alex Arnold, can help with parsing out when institutional voice makes sense.)
• Do our hiring practices indicate any kind of ideological gatekeeping, and do we have systems in place to try to genuinely diversify the viewpoints on campus?
• Are we ensuring that all students and faculty can study, live, work, and be on campus free from harassment? (For example, are we defining harassment constitutionally and maintaining and enforcing sensible time/place/manner restrictions for protests?)
• Are we providing instructors with the tools and support they need to host difficult conversations in their classrooms?

In the words of John Tomasi, “At HxA, we believe the best defense against political overreach is a university that lives up to its highest ideals,” and that “means publicly affirming [our universities’] commitment to civil rights and the open exchange of ideas — and then demonstrating that commitment through faculty hiring practices, classroom culture, and intellectual climate. America needs great universities. And it needs those universities to be truly great — not just in rankings, but in their commitment to truth, pluralism, and academic integrity.”

If you are a grad student or work at an institution of higher ed in any capacity, please join us in this timely and critically important work. We also welcome everyone’s financial support of our nonpartisan, nonprofit mission to improve the quality of research and education in universities.