Trump doesn’t let up in his attacks on universities

By contrast, in a recent New York Times guest essay, former Harvard president Lawrence Summers, while similarly criticizing the Trump administration’s heavy-handed tactics and hypocrisy, concedes that universities including Harvard “tolerate antisemitism in their midst in a way that would be inconceivable with any other form of prejudice.” And in The Atlantic, Franklin Foer notes that at Columbia, “Jewish students faced ostracism and bullying that, if experienced by any other group of students on campus, would be universally regarded as unacceptable.”

Instead of “resisting” and “reforming,” universities should have preempted White House interference by confronting anti-Jewish bigotry proactively, before the president could exploit it politically.

Stephen A. Silver

San Francisco

In the name of countering antisemitism on university campuses, Donald Trump goes beyond his predecessors by withholding federal funds and demanding concessions that seek to commandeer the schools’ curriculums, restrain their policies of free speech (including unpopular speech), and direct their disciplinary rules. This strikes at the core of universities’ mission and their very existence.

To preserve the autonomy — the freedom — of universities, particularly private institutions, government must resort to the least severe means to correct an injustice, not the harshest. Admittedly, by providing grants to private universities, government has some regulatory authority to correct injustices with regard to their functioning. However, to demand more than that would eviscerate universities’ immense contribution to a democratic society. Private institutions would become part of the authoritarian state .

Finally, one must question Trump’s intent: Is he seeking to correct the failure of universities to curb student protesters from intimidating and harassing Jews on campus, or is he seeking to impose his ideology on these universities?

Americo A. Salini Jr.

Andover

This week the Trump administration’s assault on universities that it claims have failed to sufficiently address antisemitism on campus has escalated to scrutinizing the social media accounts of international students and others seeking lawful permanent status in the United States (“US to screen social media activity of some immigrants,” Political Notebook, April 10).

The president’s claim that he’s cracking down on antisemitism to protect Jews — by cutting off universities’ federal funding, including for vital scientific and medical research — and deporting students whose only crime is that they engaged in First Amendment-protected speech is flat-out disingenuous, especially in light of Donald Trump’s tolerance or encouragement of antisemitism in other contexts (recall Charlottesville’s “very fine people on both sides”).

Further, it doesn’t protect Jews for them to be viewed as the cause of the administration’s Draconian tactics, whose actual purpose, as Project 2025 suggests, is to pry universities away from their indispensable role as promoters of free speech, critical thinking, and liberal ideals.

When sanctionable antisemitic activity is broadly construed to include protesting Israel’s behavior or promoting Palestinian rights — as the administration’s crackdown thus far suggests — it’s a flashing red light that political speech for all of us is under siege.

Michael Felsen

Jamaica Plain

Re “Elite universities choose appeasement over battle” (Metro, April 4): We’re actually better off without the political litmus test of requiring DEI statements from job applicants and letting protesters who shout down speakers or block access to classrooms go unpunished. But monitoring Middle East studies departments for anti-Israel views is outrageous — are Jewish studies departments monitored for anti-Palestinian views? Both kinds of monitoring are unacceptable, but each department might consider requiring its students to take a course from the other.

Felicia Nimue Ackerman

Providence

The writer is a professor of philosophy at Brown University; however, the views expressed here are her own, independent from the university or her affiliation there.

How misleading of the Trump administration to threaten Harvard University’s rules of governance via “review” of the $8.7 billion in multiyear grants awarded, much of it to clinical and basic science researchers based at Harvard-affiliated hospitals (“Trump administration demands Harvard end DEI, toughen student discipline,” Page A1, April 4). This threat makes it appear that these funds have been awarded to Harvard University and are part of the university’s coffers. They are not. These grants have been awarded to hospitals that are independent of Harvard University and that have their own governance and their own grants. Their grants do not belong to Harvard University and they are not governed by Harvard University, its Corporation, or its Board of Overseers.

The hospitals must fight for their National Institutes of Health funds; this is not just a fight for Harvard University. Threatening Harvard by threatening the NIH funding of Harvard-affiliated hospitals is like threatening Cambridge by holding Boston funds hostage. In fiscal 2024, the NIH awarded $3.46 billion in grants to Massachusetts, of which $2 billion went to the Seventh Congressional District, home to the Longwood Medical Area and many of the Harvard-affiliated hospitals.

The threats to this NIH funding imperil not only crucial medical and public health research but also the economic well-being of Boston and surrounding communities whose residents depend on these federal funds for employment. Elected officials and the public need to be aware of how the Trump administration’s attacks go well beyond Harvard University and threaten research and institutions vital for people’s health in the United States and globally.

Nancy Krieger

Boston

The writer is a professor of social epidemiology and the American Cancer Society Clinical Research Professor in the department of social and behavioral sciences at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.