Trump Administration puts $2.2 billion of Harvard’s research money on hold

However, the most striking aspect of the letter is the complete shift in tone about diversity. After having presented Harvard’s existing diversity efforts as the antithesis of a merit-based approach, it suddenly demands that the university enforce what it terms viewpoint diversity. It never defines what this term means—perhaps alchemy in the chemistry department? But the implications are that it amounts to affirmative action for conservatives. Harvard is directed to “audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.” Any department that fails the audit would be required to start hiring new faculty until it can pass the undefined standards demanded by the feds.

Again, all this is being presented as necessary for Harvard to continue receiving research funds.

Harvard says nope!

The university has decided these demands force it to fight, and it’s attacking on two fronts. The first is public-facing; Harvard has turned its homepage into a tribute to its researchers and the work they pursue. Although it starts with a huge banner article as shown here, links to 30 individual articles on research fill the entire page. I have a fairly high-resolution screen, and it took hitting page-down nine times to finally reach the bottom, where a handful of links to the rest of the university finally appear. The message is clear: The research that’s under threat matters, and humanity will be worse off if its funding is cut.

Separately, Harvard’s legal response, which it made public today, is basically: nope. After detailing the steps the university has already taken to address antisemitism, it gets to the crux of the issue: “your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court.” The harms these demands are meant to address, the letter alleges, haven’t actually been demonstrated through processes that are required by law.