A courtroom battle between the president and Harvard University has reached a dramatic apex. The Trump administration seeks to terminate potentially billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard University, which has, in turn, sued to compel the government to pay. Massachusetts US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs has signaled that she is unimpressed with the Trump administration’s efforts to claw back funding from Harvard University to curb alleged unconstitutional policies at the esteemed institution. President Trump has denounced the Obama appointee in advance of her ruling and vowed to win his case at the US Supreme Court. Who is right?
Harvard v. Trump?
The dispute over Harvard University’s receipt of federal support would not be in issue were it not for a disgraceful failure of the prestigious school to follow the US Constitution and Civil Rights Act in guaranteeing the rights and safety of its Jewish students. Currently, the school claims that its First Amendment liberties are being attacked, and Judge Burroughs is crediting arguments that the government should not hinder funds used for medical research, as those are unrelated to the underlying discrimination complaints.
During oral arguments Monday, Judge Burroughs hinted at her view of the case with several revealing remarks:
“ ‘You’re saying they can terminate the contracts if the executive branch doesn’t agree with the viewpoint espoused by the college?’
“ ‘You’re not taking away grants from labs that could have been antisemitic, but just cut off funding in a way one could argue hurts Americans and Jews….’
“ ‘I think the issue is whether there’s a legitimate relationship between our distaste for discrimination and the approach the administration is taking….’
Under the First Amendment, the government is barred from “viewpoint discrimination,” in which it applies prejudice toward certain content. Yet this does not apply to overt discrimination such as exhibited by Harvard University against Jews. On the contrary, the government is bound by law not to support such activities. If an organization (including Harvard, Columbia, and other colleges) receives public funds but engages in illegal discrimination, it is a violation of the US Constitution for the government to fund its behaviors.
A Double Standard?
Absent from this proscription is the artificial limitation being interposed by Judge Burroughs. Would it be acceptable for a publicly funded college to openly espouse white supremacist doctrine and receive billions of taxpayer dollars so long as the money was allocated solely to bird flu research? This appears to be the bizarre rationale crafted by a partisan judge in what should be a non-partisan prohibition of anti-Semitism.
This is why the judge’s comments sparked outrage by President Trump, who vowed to appeal what he expects to be an adverse determination. President Trump wrote:
“The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama-appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling… How did this Trump-hating Judge get these cases? When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”
As the judge weighs whether the administration’s approach is legitimate, the real question is whether Harvard or other institutions should receive funding when they have violated the fundamental rights of US citizens. If Harvard corrects its ills, the Trump administration has signaled it will restore funding. Until then, the government understandably withheld them.
Sadly, Trump Derangement Syndrome appears to create a fundamental obduracy in its sufferers. The complaints against Harvard precede Donald Trump’s current presidency. Indeed, they precede the horrific October 7, 2023, Hamas attack against Israeli civilians.
Institutional Discrimination
In August 2024, Harvard Magazine addressed the findings of two reports investigating the University’s conduct, one by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and another by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA), concluding: “According to both reports, antisemitic harassment and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students began long before October 7. The authors of the HJAA report cite anti-Israel ideas taught by Harvard professors and shared at Harvard events as the source for the rhetoric they perceived as antisemitic during campus protests (described in the report as ‘anti-Israeli, pro-Hamas’).”
The claims of Harvard discrimination are not that the esteemed University merely tolerated anti-semitism, however, but that it institutionally seeded and encouraged it. Many of the allegations are shocking in their extremism. A whole year before Donald Trump took office, Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, resigned under fire for refusing during congressional testimony to condemn calls for the genocide of Jews, instead defending such extremism as free speech. Now, Harvard lawyers claim that Trump administration efforts to halt taxpayer support for this conduct are content discrimination against Harvard’s free speech liberties.
Antisemitism Battle Continues
Long before Donald Trump sought to connect financial consequences to universities that openly discriminated against Israel, Jews filed suit against Harvard for its egregious misconduct. Under the headline “Jewish students sue Harvard over ‘rampant’ anti-semitism,” the BBC reported in January 2024:
“The complaint… argues that Jewish students have been ‘subjected to a severe and pervasive antisemitic hostile educational environment’ that have worsened since Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel.
“It claims that Harvard students and faculty members have harassed, intimidated and assaulted Jewish students in classrooms, in on-campus activities and on social media, including by calling for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel.
“Harvard, they say, ‘selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection’, while disciplining those who engage in racism, transphobia and other forms of discrimination.”
These are serious allegations against the venerable Harvard that precede Donald Trump’s presidential helmsmanship. Harvard admittedly has not implemented sufficient safeguards against future violations of Jews’ civil rights, including a ban on the wearing of identity-concealing masks by protesters. (An ironic contrast with left-wing calls for ICE agents to be prohibited from wearing masks, exposing them and their families to retaliation.) Yet Judge Burroughs objects that cutting government funding should somehow be blocked despite this lack of compliance, if it is for medical research or “nonrelated” activities.
This “have your cake and hate Jews too” hypocrisy is a stain on Harvard University and its defenders, not President Trump and those who defend Jews against government-funded discrimination. Unless Harvard reaches a resolution with the federal government, the US Supreme Court will likely resolve the matter.
