There is no denying that Harvard’s faculty and administration are almost exclusively left of center, and the Trump administration is almost exclusively right of center. The further right or the further left one is, the policies and actions of the other perspective become progressively more disgusting and dangerous.

Before I explore the Harvard vs Trump issues, let me tell you about my background. I grew up in Massachusetts, and my childhood heroes were Roy Rogers, Ted Williams, and John Kennedy. President Kennedy was my earliest political and moral inspiration. His bold leadership won a major face-off in the Cuban missile crisis, began the desegregation of our nation’s schools—remember he utilized our military to enforce that policy—and otherwise promoted racial integration across our nation. His boldness led eventually to his assassination. I enrolled at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst in 1969 as a political science major. After failing to make the baseball team—the reason I really wanted to attend UMass—I grew my hair long, wore my jeans with bellbottoms, protested the war in Vietnam, led the successful effort to register students to vote in Amherst, villainized Richard Nixon and worked to support George McGovern’s disastrous presidential campaign. I had become a bonafide liberal.

My first post-collegiate job was at the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education (Mass BHE). I lobbied the Massachusetts legislative and executive branches, administered the board’s affirmative action plan, served as Vice Chair of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, and became involved in higher education planning and governance. I left the board to attend a joint masters and doctoral program with studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Kennedy School, and MIT Sloan School in administration, planning and social policy. There I learned about a new process called strategic planning. This program was life changing. My devotion to Harvard and my professors there is strong and lifelong.

Harvard was quite liberal then, but my experience there, before at the Mass BHE, later as an administrator at Rhode Island School of Design and Boston University, and as an independent consultant shifted my political perspective. I became a Jeffersonian Liberal, believing deeply in personal rights and personal responsibilities. This is my view today: a limited, financially responsible government and a free and well-educated citizenry.

My firm, Stevens Strategy, is a boutique higher education consulting firm composed of professionals who are multiracial and have personal views across the political spectrum. What we have in common is a love for higher learning and all the institutions that help their students pursue it. We work with every genre of institution:

• Private and Public;
• For-Profit and Not-for-Profit;
• Small to Large;
• One Dominant Race to Multi-Racial;
• Single-sex to Co-ed;
• Predominantly Left, Right or Center;
• African, Asian, European, Middle Eastern, North American, and Russian;
• Baptist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, Islamic, Judaic, Lutheran, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Non-Religious, Presbyterian and Quaker.
• Domestic and International
• In-person to modern course offerings, like online and hybrid

These genres still do not describe completely the diversity of institutional cultures—from joyful, trusting, fearful, sad, angry, embattled to disgusted.

To get meaningful accomplishments for our clients, first we must gain an understanding of their culture, then explore with them their unexamined assumptions, and, finally, do the hard work to achieve from diverse perspectives a consensus on a data-based and intuitively justified understanding of themselves and their environment, so they can make plans to thrive.

We must remove bias, political or otherwise, to get to the facts and sound policy. The public policy questions for the Harvard vs Trump battle can only be understood in this manner. Here are the sides of the issue from the perspective of the Trump Administration, Harvard University, the Anti-Defamation League, and the National Association of Scholars:

The Trump administration’s demands on Harvard include program oversight, admissions and disciplinary reforms, elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, and submission of reports on antisemitism and bias, a $2.2 billion research funding freeze, and a review of Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Specifically:

1. Oversight and Reform: The government has demanded program oversight, governance and hiring reforms, accountability, and transparency measures, disciplinary and admissions reform, and the elimination of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, suggesting that these measures are necessary to address perceived issues within Harvard’s operations.
2. Combatting Antisemitism and Bias: The government has requested Harvard to turn over reports from task forces on combating antisemitism and anti-Muslim, -Arab, and -Palestinian bias, indicating a focus on ensuring compliance with civil rights protections. It argues the university inculcates bias against conservative viewpoints and the promotion of progressive ideologies. The U.S. Department of Education is investigating forty-five universities for potential violations of the Civil Rights Act.
3. Accountability for Federal Funding: By freezing $2.2 billion in research grants and threatening additional funding cuts, the government may be asserting its authority to ensure that institutions receiving federal assistance respond adequately to antisemitism on campuses and adhere to specific standards or conditions compliance, such as reasonable overhead rates, now as high as 70%. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) are primary funding sources at risk. Other universities, including Columbia University, are also at risk of losing federal research funding. A list of seventy-seven colleges facing potential cuts has been published by the Chronicle of Higher Education.
4. Tax-Exempt Status and Foreign Student Hosting: The government has broadened its scrutiny to include Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which they argue is at risk because of discriminatory policies and engagement in political activities. It is also challenging its ability to host foreign students, potentially questioning whether the University is meeting its obligations in these areas.

Harvard’s response to the government’s demands includes the following actions and arguments:

1. Rejection of the Demands: On April 14, Harvard President Alan M. Garber sent a community-wide email titled “The Promise of American Higher Education,” explicitly declining the government’s demands.
2. Legal Action: Harvard filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the funding freeze and associated demands violate the First Amendment and established procedures for addressing campus civil rights violations.
3. Defense of Academic Freedom: Harvard’s lawyers argued that the government’s demands would impose improper control over the University and chill its exercise of First Amendment rights and decisions related to faculty hiring, academics, and admissions.
4. Title VI Complaint: Harvard contended that the government failed to follow the mandatory statutory framework under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 before freezing funds. This framework requires specific steps, such as hearings, written reports, and a waiting period, none of which were followed.
5. Efforts to Combat Antisemitism: Harvard acknowledged the importance of combating antisemitism and highlighted its own initiatives, including updates to regulations and disciplinary policies to ensure campus safety and fairness for Jewish and Israeli students.
6. Criticism of Funding Freeze: Harvard argued that indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save lives, foster success, and maintain global leadership in innovation.
7. Request to Court: Harvard asked the court to declare the freeze order and associated demands unlawful or to postpone their activation dates.

The university released two reports addressing campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias following heightened tensions after the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. The reports were written by faculty and student task forces and were extremely critical of Harvard’s religious bias. Harvard President Alan Garber apologized for the university’s inaction. This concession is likely a first step in possible negotiations with the Trump administration.

The Anti-Defamation League Center (ADL) to Combat Antisemitism in Education “Campus Crisis Alert” reports the following:

Recent incidents and developments related to antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on college campuses:

1. Harvard: ADL commended the antisemitism-focused report and urged transparent enforcement of conduct rules.
2. AAUP: The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) referred to Hamas attacks as a “revolt” and dismissed campus antisemitism concerns, sparking criticism. ADL and the Academic Engagement Network (AEN) are urging AAUP to address the harm caused and ensure inclusive advocacy.
3. Dartmouth: Red paint vandalism at Dartmouth Hall protested the college’s investments tied to Israel. Dartmouth condemned the act, emphasizing free expression does not include property destruction.
4. Berklee College of Music: Nicholas Payton was terminated for antisemitic remarks, including blaming Jews for the slave trade. Payton criticized Berklee for its lack of due process.
5. University of Kansas: The Student Senate overrode a veto of an anti-Israel resolution, despite opposition from the Student Body President and Jewish organizations, who argued the resolution demonized Israel and alienated Jewish students.
6. UNC-Chapel Hill: Brendan Rosenblum gained national attention for re-raising the U.S. flag after pro-Palestinian protesters replaced it with a Palestinian flag. He reflects on the honor and challenges of his actions.
7. UCSB: Retired professors accused Jewish organizations of “weaponizing” antisemitism. ADL clarified that targeting Jewish students due to perceived ties to Israel is antisemitism, citing past incidents at UCSB.

The conservative higher education association, the National Association of Scholars, reports the following:

1. Many Americans are skeptical of universities due to high overhead costs and perceived misuse of federal funds.
2. Concerns about rising tuition costs and the impact of DEI programs contribute to public discontent.
3. The public is indifferent to potential disruptions caused by funding cuts.
4. Higher education institutions in the Jim Crow South, emphasizing their ideological rigidity.
5. Extraordinary measures should be taken to reform universities, likening them to historical civil rights battles.
6. Federal intervention is justified to restore liberty and accountability in higher education.

The following reports from Harvard Magazine, NAS and the Wall Street Journal and the Anti-Defamation League are the sources for the previous analysis:

• https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2025/04/harvard-sues-trump-administration
• https://www.nas.org/blogs/statement/fighting-harvard-and-the-other-cultural-warlords
• https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/harvard-report-antisemitism-trump-3bfd4a2d
• https://view.adlmail.org/