Mother Harvard

Apparently, the subjects of the British crown want to know what is going on in America. In particular, they care about the current Kuilturkampf between the Trump administration and Harvard University.

To enlighten the British masses the Times of London-- not to be confused with the New York Times-- called upon eminent economic historian Niall Ferguson. He did not merely teach at Harvard. He was educated in Great Britain and taught at Cambridge.

Being as Ferguson is an historian, he traffics in specious historical analogies. Isn’t that why we all study history? I will spare you the details, but he compares what is going on between Trump and Harvard to a conflict that occurred at Oxford University between King James II and the fellows of Magdalen College  in the seventeenth century. 

What would we do without economic historians?

Ferguson wants to argue that notwithstanding the fact that Harvard is rife with anti-Semitism, the Trump administration has taken the wrong approach. It has been too heavy-handed against Harvard and risks being overthrown, so to speak.

As we see Columbia University getting religion and shutting down an anti-Semitic protest we might well conclude that the Trump approach, of cutting off funds, does get the attention of college administrators.

As for the actions the Trump administration took against dear old Harvard, Ferguson summarizes them:

Eight days later, Harvard received another letter from the government. This one demanded that the university take a long list of actions if it wished to continue receiving federal funds. For example, Harvard must: hire a third party to audit certain programmes, identify faculty members who contributed to antisemitism on campus, and sanction them “within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment”; implement merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, to be audited by a third party; and shut down all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes and offices. Not long after, the government suspended $2.2 billion in multiyear federal grants and $60 million in contracts.

Clearly, the administration thought there was a problem. And it did not believe that Harvard was capable, using its own moral sense, of tamping down campus anti-Semitism.

Ferguson explains the problem at Harvard:

Late last month, the Harvard Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias published its report. It depicts a shocking culture of intolerance on campus: “Student activists [attempt] to drive Israeli students (and Jewish students who feel connected to Israel) out of student life.

This often takes the form of ‘shunning’.” And: “American Jewish students told us … they felt pressure to condemn Israel to prove they were ‘one of the good ones’ (meaning, an ‘anti-Zionist Jew’), and faced social consequences when they refused.” Moreover: “Jewish students told us stories of Harvard-run ‘privilege trainings’ where they were told that they were deemed to be privileged not only by dint of being identified as White but also because of their Jewishness”.

Whether or not you agree that the Trump administration overreacted, there is little question but that Harvard, in Ferguson’s words, has become “a hotbed of antisemitism:”

The problem here is that an institution once notable for its high proportions of Jewish faculty and students has, by its own admission, become a hotbed of antisemitism, even if some of this can be construed as anti-Israelism, a somewhat different thing. According to research by Fire, 67 per cent of Harvard students say it would be difficult to have an open and honest conversation about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Among faculty, the share is 84 per cent.

Harvard has trampled on civil rights laws and deserves to have its tax-exempt status revoked. Ferguson explains:

In short, there is a prima facie case that Harvard has in multiple ways violated civil rights law in ways that would justify the loss of its tax-exempt status. That is the standard the Supreme Court set in 1982, when it upheld a decision by the US taxman to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, in Greenhill, South Carolina, over its racially discriminatory policies, which included rules against interracial dating. (BJU regained its tax-exempt status in 2017, having abandoned the interracial dating rule in 2000.)

Of course, it’s not merely about anti-Semitism. Harvard has fostered a climate where free and open discussion and debate are impossible:

Here’s the Harvard Crimson again, from February 10.

“Only one third of Harvard’s last graduating class felt comfortable expressing their opinions about controversial topics during their time at the College, the University’s 2024 senior survey found, reporting a 13 per cent decrease from the Class of 2023.” Guess what? Only 19.2 per cent of the Class of 2028 are very concerned or concerned about free speech.

As noted, Ferguson believes that the Trump administration has overplayed its hand. He does not, it is fair to note, explain how he would have dealt with the situation:

Harvard merely exemplifies the rot that permeates the entire system. And yet my great fear is that, as happened in the case of James II and the fellows of Magdalen, too aggressive an external challenge may end up backfiring. For the reality is that the Trump administration chose the bazooka, not the scalpel, when it decided to make an example of Harvard. My nightmare is that, as a result, the worst culprits in the downfall of Harvard will now re-emerge from their recent, conspicuous silence to pose as the heroic upholders of academic freedom.

It’s very collegial to criticize without offering an alternative solution. For all you and I know, there was no real alternative to the crackdown on Harvard.