Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University

Following Harvard's refusal to comply with its illegal demands, the federal government has taken a number of actions over the course of the past week. Even though some administration members have claimed that the April 11 letter was sent in error, other statements and actions suggest otherwise. In addition to the initial freeze of $2.2 billion in funding, the government has considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1 billion in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard's operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard's 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status—all of which would impose unprecedented and improper control over the University. Patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the global standing of American higher education are directly affected by these actions.

The government's overreach will have severe and long-lasting effects. The government has put at risk research that aims to improve the chances of children surviving cancer, comprehend how cancer spreads throughout the body at the molecular level, predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and alleviate the suffering of soldiers wounded in combat. The government is putting the brakes on as opportunities to lower the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease loom. Future patients and their families will be the ones to suffer the pain of illnesses that could have been avoided or treated more effectively. The nation's capacity to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain its position as a global innovation leader is undermined by the indiscriminate reduction of medical, scientific, and technological research funding.

The university's response to antisemitism has served as the government's justification for its illegal action. As an American Jew, I am well aware of the legitimate concerns regarding the rise of antisemitism. Understanding, intention, and vigilance are required to effectively address it. That work is taken seriously at Harvard. As long as we fully comply with our legal obligations, we will continue to fight hate with the utmost vigor. This is more than just our legal obligation. It is our moral responsibility.

The law stipulates that the federal government must discuss our strategies for combating antisemitism with us before taking any punitive measures. Instead, the April 11 demands from the government aim to control who we hire and what we teach. Today, we uphold the principles that have established American higher education as a global model. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities all over the country can comply with their legal responsibilities and best fulfill their essential role in society without inappropriate government intervention. This is how we advance the limitless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future, ensure open inquiry and freedom of speech, and carry out ground-breaking research.

Defending University Autonomy: Harvard views the Trump administration's actions as an attempt to exert undue control over the university's academic decision-making, governance, and policies. They believe that the demands made by the administration go against the autonomy that American universities have traditionally been given.

Upholding Rights Under the First Amendment: Harvard's lawsuit makes it clear that the funding freeze violates its rights under the First Amendment, particularly its right to free speech. The university contends that the government is attempting to suppress opposing viewpoints through financial leverage.

Upholding First Amendment Rights: A central argument in Harvard's lawsuit is that the funding freeze violates its First Amendment rights, particularly the right to free speech. The university argues that the government is trying to use financial leverage to suppress viewpoints it disagrees with.

Opposing Overreach by the Government: Harvard describes the demands made by the administration as "intrusive" and an attempt to impose "unprecedented and improper control" over the university. They are resisting what they see as an infringement on their right to manage their own affairs and government overreach.