Harvard protests Trump’s threat to international students
Harvard students and staff are opposed to the threat of the Trump administration.
Al Jazeera
- A federal judge ruled in Harvard’s favor in lawsuits against the Trump administration.
- The judge said the administration appears to be using anti-Semitism as a “smoke screen” for ideologically motivated actions.
A federal judge gave Harvard a victory in the legal battle with the Trump administration, ruling with Ivy League Schools in an attempt to restore nearly $3 billion in federal funds for research by the White House.
The decision from US District Judge Alison Burrows in Boston on September 3 rejected the administration’s argument that it targeted university funds due to anti-Semitism allegations on Harvard’s campus.
The judge wrote in his 84-page ruling, “It is difficult to conclude anything other than that the defendant used anti-Semitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated attack on the country’s finest universities.”
This decision is a big victory for Harvard, the only university to bring the White House to court. While the Trump administration has argued for a legal battle over campus anti-Semitism, Harvard has seen its larger battle over its overall academic freedom and federal spending.
“We must fight anti-Semitism, but we must protect our rights, including our rights to free speech, and we do not need to sacrifice our goals at the altar of others,” Burrows said. “It appears Harvard is currently taking the necessary steps to combat anti-Semitism, even if it’s late, and that it needs to do more if necessary.”
The judge also added, “Now that stepping up likewise and acting to protect academic and freedom of speech in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is voluntarily breached, is in charge of government responsibilities left to the task, to ensure that it does not inappropriately interfere with the termination of the grant.”
On July 21, the day of hearing between Harvard University and the Trump administration, the president criticized the judge in a true social post, calling Burrows a “complete disaster.” Trump also said if the ruling is not in his favor, he will “appeal immediately and win.”
Harvard did not immediately respond to USA Today’s request for comment. However, the White House condemned the ruling, telling USA Today that Trump was right in his social media posts, and that Obama-appointed judge Burrows is always trying to control Harvard.
“To a fair observer, it is clear that Harvard University did not protect students from harassment, and that discrimination has allowed campus for years to plague,” White House spokesman Liz Houston said in an emailed statement. “As Harvard does not have any taxpayer constitutional rights, future grants remain ineligible.
“We will soon move to appeal this terrible decision, and we are confident that we will ultimately win the efforts to hold Harvard accountable,” Huston added.
Will the months of conflict end?
The Trump administration has frozen or terminated federal grants and contracts for universities worth nearly $3 billion. Harvard has repeatedly said that it “cannot absorb the overall cost” of the freeze grant, and that it was working together to help researchers find alternative funds.
After rejecting the Trump administration’s requests, including audits, and closing the “met-based” admission and employment policy establishment, university diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program, the administration announced it would cut Harvard’s federal funding.
Harvard sued the Trump administration in April over its decision to cut funds. The parties later agreed to participate in settlement consultations and court hearings.
During that hearing in July, the Trump administration said it was power to cancel grants and contracts because it felt Harvard University was not doing enough in its belief to combat campus anti-Semitism against unconfirmedness. They argued Burrows in July that granting federal research funds to the agency was not “charitable appeal.”
They also argued that “Harvard has prioritized protesters on campus over cancer research.”
In her ruling, Burrows said there was no investigation into whether certain labs were engaged in anti-Semitic behavior, employing Jews, run by Jewish scientists, and specifically investigating issues and illnesses related to Jews.
The judge further stated that “a freeze in funding could and possibly harm the accused of those who have publicly declared they are protecting.”
Burroughs also wrote that the Trump administration “failed to provide a reasonable explanation for how or why the freeze and termination funds would end the goal of ending anti-Semitism, comparing the impact of grants they were trying to end, and considering reliable decades through previous practices of fundraising research at Harvard.”
The judge added in her ruling that even if Harvard could afford to absorb the loss of funds, the university “subject to proper establishment that members would cause concrete harm through the end of the grant.”
