Higher Ed Leaders React To Harvard’s Stand Against Trump Administration

On April 11, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard University demanding an end to its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in hiring, admissions, and programs. It also called for systematic screening of international students and student organizations, accusing some of promoting antisemitism, terrorism, and hostility toward American values. Failure to comply, the letter warned, could result in the loss of billions in federal funding.

In a swift and firm response, attorneys representing Harvard sent a letter on April 14 unequivocally rejecting the administration’s demands. They wrote that the letter “presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and the law.”

The attorneys reinforced their stance, making clear, “The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.”

Further strengthening the university’s position, Harvard President Alan Garber addressed the campus community directly. In his message, he emphasized the gravity of the moment and the broader implications for higher education, writing, “The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. 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.”

The Trump administration responded immediately and forcefully: $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard were frozen, with additional billions potentially at risk.

In light of these developments, I reached out to leaders and scholars across the country to gauge their responses to Harvard’s refusal to comply.

John S. Wilson, former president of Morehouse College and a three-time Harvard graduate, didn’t shy away from the topic, stating, “From even a casual read of the Trump administration’s bizarre demands, any reasonable person would fully expect Harvard University to articulate the kind of clear and compelling objection they announced on Monday. Had Harvard leadership done otherwise, it would merely be the first of many bows to a chainsaw-wielding authoritarian regime.” He continued, "In fact, it might have been the first step toward Harvard University declining and deforming into something more akin to Trump University. Instead, Harvard now has an opportunity to help lead the rest of higher education to the high road of insisting that human progress is still more about discovery than it will ever be about recovery. The greatness of Harvard and America is ahead of us, not behind us."

Similarly, Andrés Castro Samayoa, a Boston College faculty member and a Harvard graduate, underscored the national importance of Harvard’s stance. He stated, “I think that Harvard’s decision to reject the federal government’s conditions is critically necessary right now. Any other response undermines the future of all universities. The federal conditions clearly impose requirements that would fundamentally alter the existing precedent for universities’ governance and academic freedom." He added, "I cannot emphasize this enough, though: Harvard’s situation is not unique. This moment calls for coalition-building with other affected institutions to mount a unified response. Any institution receiving federal funding will eventually face similar scenarios. By building alliances now, Harvard can help establish protective boundaries between government funding and academic independence at a time where principled and unified responses are of utmost importance.”

Ben Ralston, president and CEO of the Sachs Foundation—which provides scholarships for Black students, framed Harvard’s response as a long-awaited act of institutional integrity. He noted, “For years, marginalized students—particularly Black and brown students—have questioned whether universities that pledged a commitment to equity ever truly believed in justice. The Trump administration laid bare how many institutions were only paying lip service to those ideals, as we watched one after another back down in the face of threatened funding.” He continued, "Understandably, students have been left wondering whether any institution would actually stand by its stated values. Harvard University is arguably the most prominent name in academia. For students to see not only an institution taking a principled stand against the government of the day but for that stand to be made in Cambridge is deeply meaningful. With the weight Harvard brings, there is hope that other universities will follow—reaffirming their commitments, standing firm in their values, and joining Harvard in coalition."

Karen Gross, former president of Southern Vermont College and a senior policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education under the Obama administration, expressed pride in Harvard’s refusal to yield. She stated, “I never thought I would say this with such passion, but here goes: We can and should be extremely proud of Harvard University. They did not crater to Trump.” She went on, “Harvard stands tall for speaking truth to governmental power. Yes, they risk losing federal government funding in the billions, but they risk vastly more than that if the university caved to illegal demands. They would lose their integrity, diminish the Rule of Law, and unravel the moral fabric that undergirds colleges/universities in particular and society writ large.” For Gross, one line in President Garber’s message to the Harvard community stood out: "The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights."

Gross also highlighted the coercive tone of the Trump administration’s communication: “The Harvard decision was in the context of a threatening letter from federal authorities saying ‘Harvard/the University must…’ at least 15 times as if the federal government can run private universities with the mere stroke of a pen." She contrasted Harvard’s fortitude with the compliance of others, noting, "Harvard’s willingness to speak up and out and take risks stands in sharp contrast to other universities and to BigLaw firms that have cratered in a flash to illegal demands, collapsing like Houses of Cards.” For Gross, Harvard’s stature carries responsibility: “If Harvard did not take a stand, who could? As a preeminent institution with plentiful resources, a gargantuan endowment, many, many wealthy donors, and a global reputation for academic excellence, Harvard could afford to demonstrate courage.” Still, she emphasized that courage is never easy, even for the most privileged: “It is harder for small colleges/universities to take risks in the ways Harvard both did and can.” However, she made it clear that “courage in any situation is not easy to exercise, and it comes at a literal and figurative price.” And yes, she warned, "failure to exercise courage in the face of illegality is a way higher and longer lasting price from which recovery may not be possible."

Perhaps Walter Kimbrough, interim president of Talladega College and frequent critic of elite universities with billions in endowment funds, said it best. "I immediately thought of the Biblical saying, ‘To Whom much is given, much is required.’ As the oldest and wealthiest university in America, with one of the top law schools, this is the fight Harvard was built for.”

Harvard’s refusal to comply with the Trump administration’s demands marks a significant moment in the ongoing struggle between academic freedom and political interference. By standing firm, Harvard has defended its own institutional autonomy while sending a powerful message: integrity and constitutional rights must not be traded for convenience or financial security. As scholars and leaders have made clear, this message is not merely about Harvard—it is about the future of higher education and the principles upon which it stands. In this era of heightened political pressure, universities must choose whether to protect their core values or risk becoming instruments of partisan agendas regardless of which party is in office.