Harvard University shows that the only option with Trump is to fight

Now, school districts across the United States face the same decisions as institutions of higher education: allowing the government to review their guidance or stand up and lose federal funding. As Harvard and Colombia proved by taking the opposite approach, there is really only one option: fighting.

That’s because the Trump administration has shown that this is not negotiating in good faith. Whenever an educational institution interacts with the White House, the White House changes its target position – changing its reasons and changing its list of needs.

After months of negotiations with Harvard University and initially setting some reasonable conditions, the government issued a series of demands Friday that were like ransom notices. Various orders require universities to hand over confidential recruitment and admission data; submit “views” reviews of university operations; “reduce” what students and faculty believe the government sees as too much influence; and impose uncertain “diversity of perspectives” in their departments.
The letter of demand from three Trump administration officials said the federal civil rights law was the justification for his order. On Monday, a government spokesman said the White House was acting to protect its claims of being unfairly treated because of “unsubscribed to organizational anti-Semitism,” “racially motivated violence” or “dangerous racial discrimination.” Then on Wednesday, Donald Trump himself offered another reason: “Harvard has been hiring nearly all awake, radical left, idiot and ‘bird brain.'”

The reason for this transfer is being revealed. The real goal is unfair. It is control – it is part of the larger administration targeting education. A week ago, a different letter of request had landed in the email box of school supervisors across the country. On April 3, the U.S. Department of Education awarded the school district on April 24 to “prove” that they closed all programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion or the loss of federal funding.

Federal funds account for about 10% of K-12 funds. It is mainly used to assist low-income schools, fund vocational and technical education programs, and to assist students with disabilities. Now, the Ministry of Education’s Civil Rights Office threatens to withhold money from schools that allow “continue to use illegal DEI practices” without defining these habits. The April 3 letter simply implies that “some” efforts violate Chapter 6 of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs based on race. If these investigations find violations, the government may provide educators with the opportunity to respond to due process and then order remedial measures and penalties.

The administration did not choose these options. Instead, this process is avoided to reshape education by guiding teaching, recruitment and admission decisions at public and private universities and reviewing content in state and local public schools. The end result may be that the school makes the conception, restricting books and final curriculum disagree.

Initially, many schools were reluctant to oppose excessive federal violations due to the extent to which K-12 areas and universities rely on federal funds. But then it became clear that they had nothing to find.

Columbia University learns that this is a difficult approach. To restore $400 million in government funding, the university agreed to allow government intervention in its operations, including putting the university’s Middle East Research Unit under new supervision and creating security forces with the authority to arrest. But once the ink is dry, Trump’s team needs more.

The government is now reportedly ready to install federal oversight over the university, and the university is starting to show that it will not cross.

On one hand, Harvard hired some top gunman lobbyists and tried to avoid a standoff with the government. It agreed to work with the Trump administration when the request is justified, but Harvard refused to surrender when it comes to a list of demands that universities turn into a surrender think tank.

“No government has a government—whoever in power should decide what private universities can teach, who they can acknowledge and hire, and what areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” University President Alan W. Garber said in a statement Monday.

Within hours of receiving a response from Harvard University, the Trump administration announced it would withhold $2.2 billion in federal contracts and provide grants to schools and their branches. There is another $6.8 billion in danger. By another retaliatory move Wednesday, the IRS was developing plans to revoke college tax exemptions.

Even for schools with $53 billion donations, that’s not a change. Federally sponsored research accounts for 11% of Harvard’s revenue. The university has lined up lawyers to fight the government in court.

Now, K-12 schools face similar options: bow down and save their money (and potentially invite more pressure) or fight back, knowing that the battle can be expensive.

Some states have performed the same calculations as Harvard. According to the Education Week analysis, 11 states (led by Democratic governors) refused to sign the certification. 16 states and Puerto Rico said they intend to sign it. The remaining 23 have not announced their intentions yet.

Opponents focus on how the government tries to silence speech and tilt civil rights. In an anonymous alternative post, the person identified as the “region principal” sums up the absurdity of government logic:

Your letter describes the interest as a threat. But fairness is not a threat. This is the antidote for decades of failure. Fairness is what ensures that all students have fair shots. Fairness is what makes children with speech disorders present at the Science Fair. This is what helps non-verbal kindergartens use AAC devices. This is why the ESL support that newcomers in Ukraine need without being left behind.

Others questioned the legitimacy of the federal government’s last pass. Washington State Principal Chris Reykdal questioned the Department of Education’s right to require its state to “cede” the federal government to determine its own education system. (Almost all funds used for public education come from local taxes.)

“We will not sign other certificates that lack authority, lack of clarity or attacks on national and local school district autonomy,” he said last week. “It is irresponsible to do so.”

Benjamin Jones, general counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Teaching, said the order could be “unauthorized, illegal and unconstitutional.”

The battle against funding with schools and universities is likely to have a showdown in court. Meanwhile, the Trump administration may make more requests. But the message from Harvard and these states’ education leaders is strong: Fighting can be expensive, but surrender is worse.