Harvard University rejects Trump’s diktat

United States President Donald Trump is very clear in his mind that he would brook no opposition. So his demand from the reputed universities of America to abandon principles of free speech and liberal values was not surprising.

When the Department of Education sent a letter to Harvard University demanding that it should weed out students holding leftist views, that it should throw out those students, who protested Israel’s war atrocities on civilians in Gaza, terming the protesters as indulging in anti-Semitism, to filter foreign students seeking admission based on their political views, to abandon the criteria of diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) in admissions and in appointments of staff, and go by the criterion of merit alone, it was accompanied by the warning that if Harvard refused to adhere to the criteria laid out by the Department of Education, then the $2.3 billion government funding would be blocked. A similar warning was issued to another reputed private university, Columbia, and the threat of suspending $400 million government funding, was held. Columbia University complied.

Harvard University’s Alan Garber replied, “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.”

It is the statement of an ideal liberal institution in a democracy, and the United States had been such a democracy. As a matter of fact, Harvard University is not a liberal university. It is quite conservative. But it does not shut out students and faculty with liberal values. The university does not subscribe to the individual opinions but it does not impose censorship. To accuse Harvard of harbouring leftists and communists becomes laughable.

The Trump Administration’s intolerant stance is a reminder of the McCarthy Era of the 1950s, when the US Senate harassed communists and suspected communists in every sphere of American life. It was an assertion of dictatorship which lasted for a few years and then ran out of steam. The same fate perhaps awaits Trump’s intellectual intolerance. America’s reputation as a land of the free is because of its individual freedoms and the institutions of higher education that thrived in the ecological system of free speech.

The Department of Education’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, responded to Garber’s letter saying that his stand “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.”

There is no proof to suggest that Harvard University or any other ‘prestigious’ institution had violated the law. The complaint is that the pro-Palestinian protestors criticised the state of Israel. The criticism of Israel is being termed anti-Semitism. If the issue is taken to the Supreme Court, then it would be hard to justify the government’s contention. The US government support for Israel is a policy issue and not a matter of constitutional law. And criticism of Israel cannot be equated with anti-Semitism.

It is still an open question whether other top private universities will take a cue from Harvard or follow the example of Columbia. But the clash between the diktat of state and the principle of freedom upheld by Harvard strikes at the root of American democracy. Trump and his hardened Republican followers will have a tough time undermining the foundations of free speech in America.

President Trump and his followers are entirely justified in disagreeing with the stance taken by Harvard University, and to dislike deeply Harvard’s adherence to democratic values. But the Trump Administration would be crossing the red line as it were if were to threaten Harvard or any other university for holding views opposed to that of the government of the day.