This story, originally published on April 9, has been updated to include reactions to Harvard declining the federal government's demands.
This spring, federal government actions have stoked fear on campuses nationwide. On March 7, U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration announced it had canceled $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University “over its failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment.” The next day, immigration agents detained Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of pro-Palestine campus protests who holds permanent U.S. resident status. And, on March 31, the federal government placed under review about $9 billion in grants to Harvard and affiliated hospitals.
Throughout the past month, several groups of Harvard alumni and faculty members have written and signed open letters encouraging President Alan M. Garber and the Corporation to stand up to the Trump administration. The ways in which the letters build off each other, adjusting requests over time, reflect the changing nature of the government’s pressures on higher education.
The first letter, written by Jim Stodder ’71 was published in response to Khalil’s arrest. Stodder, a former Vietnam War student protester who now regrets participating in the 1969 University Hall takeover, initiated the petition on the class of 1971 email list, edited it with peers, and published it online on March 18. Now signed by 1,888 alumni, the letter urges “Harvard to make an open-letter statement that it will govern its own internal affairs, and protect the free speech and right to due process of all its students, faculty, and staff.” Stodder condemned Khalil’s arrest, writing, “It is hard to imagine any government action more destructive of academic freedom and open debate.”
He encouraged Garber to resist demands that the federal government might make of Harvard. (Read about those demands, made on April 3.) “Unless the presidents of U.S. colleges and universities speak out and stand together for their students and faculty, the Trump administration will feel no limits in going after those institutions,” the letter continues. “We cannot appease the Trump administration—it always asks for more. It will soon ask to see our course offerings, speakers’ lists, staff’s CVs, admissions notes, and so on.”
Notably absent from Stodder’s letter is any mention of campus antisemitism—the nominal reason for the federal administration’s demands. Stodder obliquely referenced Harvard’s duty to protect Jewish students (writing that “Harvard has the right to regulate campus speech to some extent, to protect all members of the university community from threats”). Three weeks after publication, he says he wishes he rebuked antisemitism more strongly, telling Harvard Magazine, “I think the letter could have been more explicit about the rights of Jewish students and faculty.”
The next letter, published online by a group of faculty members on March 24 and addressed to the governing boards, is shorter and contains more concrete demands to defend the University. The letter was drafted by a group of professors including professor of government Ryan Enos and Rockefeller professor of Latin American studies Steven Levitsky, who both distributed it to the faculty. 840 faculty members have signed, but Enos tells Harvard Magazine over email that “many, many faculty members” expressed support but were unwilling “to sign out of fear of repercussions,” especially faculty who are not U.S. citizens. The letter reads:
Ongoing attacks on American universities threaten bedrock principles of a democratic society, including rights of free expression, association, and inquiry. In light of this unprecedented assault, we urge Harvard’s leadership to do three things:
Publicly condemn attacks on universities.
Legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance. Freedom from political interference has allowed American universities to lead the world in scientific and medical innovation, from which our entire country benefits.
Work with other universities and Harvard’s own alumni networks to mount a coordinated opposition to these anti-democratic attacks.
Five days later, Harvard Law School (HLS) faculty followed with their own letter, this one addressed to HLS students with reference to the Trump administration’s aggressive actions toward law firms, clinics, and legal representation, rather than University issues per se. The 96 signing professors stressed that they were writing “in [their] individual capacities.” The letter reads, “We believe that American legal precepts and the institutions designed to uphold them are being severely tested,” continuing:
The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders:
single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth Amendment;
threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior government service;
relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds for favored causes; and
punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern.
The letter concluded with the professors reaffirming their “commitment to the rule of law and to [their] roles in teaching and upholding the precepts of a fair and impartial legal system.”
Wasserstein public interest professor of law Andrew Crespo, who signed the letter, tells Harvard Magazine over email that it is “an unprecedented display of collective voice by members of the Harvard Law School faculty.” He continues, “In my 10 years teaching here, I do not recall 90 of my colleagues agreeing on anything. But we felt compelled in these extraordinary times to speak directly to our students about the existential threat the Trump administration’s recent actions pose to the rule of law, to our students’ ability to continue learning free from censorship and intimidation, and to this country’s continued existence as a constitutional democracy.”
On March 31, after the Trump administration announced it was reviewing $9 billion of federal grants to Harvard, President Garber sent a community-wide email titled “Our Resolve” (published in its entirety here). In it, Garber reaffirmed the University’s commitment to combating antisemitism, outlined actions already taken to fight such hatred, and acknowledged, “We still have much work to do.” Some alumni worried that Garber would capitulate to Trump administration demands when he wrote, “We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.”
After reading that email, Anurima Bhargava ’96, not wanting Harvard to agree to terms that might encroach on academic freedom, joined a group of alumni in writing a letter and published it the following evening. Their note, “An Open Letter from Harvard Alumni to Defend the University’s Freedom and Integrity,” echoes the March 24 faculty letter’s demands. This letter, with 1,621 alumni signatures, directly addresses antisemitism, reading, “We unequivocally condemn antisemitism and every other form of discrimination and hate, which have no place at Harvard or in our society. Yet charges of antisemitism should not be used as a pretext for illegal and unconstitutional governmental pressure on academic institutions; to undermine and destroy the livelihood and essential investments made by researchers, entrepreneurs, scholars, and creators without due process; and to forcibly silence and limit the scope of intellectual transformation, debate and protest on campus.”
Bhargava, who led civil rights enforcement in schools for the Barack Obama-era Department of Justice, argues that the Trump administration’s attacks on campuses have significantly deviated from the normal processes for criticizing university practices. “In some ways, there is no legal basis for what they’re asking for,” she says. “This is extraordinary overreach into the University’s First Amendment right to academic freedom.”
Another group of alumni led by David Huang ’97 and Helen Fairman ’91 published a petition on April 1 in response to Garber’s letter. Their letter, which has garnered 1,034 signatures, reprints the March 24 faculty letter’s three requests and adds three more:
Protect non-American students, faculty, and staff from detention and/or deportation without due process, including meaningful opportunity to contest the government action in court.
Use the full range of Harvard resources to oppose oppression.
Protect the right to free speech and room for dissent on Harvard campuses as granted in The Constitution, inasmuch as the erosion of free speech provides fertile ground for the growth of fascism.
It remains to be seen how Harvard will respond to the federal government. On April 3 the federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a letter to Garber and Harvard Corporation senior fellow Penny Pritzker detailing “several broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform that the government views as necessary for Harvard to implement to remain a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars.” It requests that Harvard reform its disciplinary process, punish students whose groups violate University policy, end diversity programming, institute merit-based admissions and hiring, and cooperate with law enforcement.
In the coming weeks, Harvard administrators will likely outline how the University will respond in order to protect its funding—and its core academic operations. With so much at stake for this and other institutions of higher education (the list keeps growing), Harvard alumni and faculty will certainly continue to engage and speak out.
Update: April 16, 2:30 P.M.
On Monday, Harvard President Alan M. Garber announced that the University would not comply with federal demands upon its governance, curriculum, and hiring practices. The authors of faculty and alumni letters encouraging Harvard to resist told Harvard Magazine that they approve of Garber’s message and Harvard’s approach.
Jim Stodder ’71, who published a letter from alumni on March 18, wrote that Garber’s response expresses a “rare combination of firm principle with openness to dialogue.” Stodder pledged “a small contribution to Harvard scholarships.”
Professor of government Ryan Enos, who co-authored a faculty letter published on March 24, wrote that Harvard’s leadership “was right to reject” the federal government’s demands, saying, “I hope they will contest them by every lawful means possible.” He called the demands “an unconscionable attack on higher education and the system of free speech that characterizes American democracy.” He continued, “Among other intrusions, they were asking for a system of political loyalty tests for hiring and admissions at Harvard.…For Harvard to fulfill its duty to American civil society, it must be willing to take the lead in the defense of higher education.”
Anurima Bhargava ’96, who co-authored an alumni letter published on April 1, said the Trump administration “made an unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to usurp Harvard's power and independence, and to attack the freedoms—of inquiry, expression, protest and association—upon which higher education and democracy rely.” She praised Harvard, writing that the school “stepped forward to uphold the university's innate values and principles—the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge, the seeking of truth, and the unqualified commitment to research, scholarship and innovation—and to affirm the necessity of open, constructive engagement and a diverse and robust learning environment.” She continued, “Harvard must continue to stand firm against the administration's attempts to narrow and dictate what can be taught and learned, and destroy the very core of education in America.”
Helen Fairman ’91, one of the authors of an April 1 petition, wrote she is “gratified to see Harvard respond with the kind of courage and integrity alumni were demanding.” She continued, “This will not be an easy road for the university but it’s one we can travel with our heads held high.” Her co-author, David Huang ’97, wrote that he is “so grateful that President Garber and Harvard University have stood up to the egregious, unlawful demands of the Trump administration.” He continued, “The alumni stand in support of and with Harvard to lead American higher education in keeping academic freedom and discovery an integral part of the fabric of our Nation. And we know we are just at the beginning of the work to ensure Harvard’s academic independence as well as that of America.”
