Harvard University rejected a $9 billion demand from the Trump administration to implement changes to its admissions and curriculum, prioritizing institutional integrity over funding. This decision contrasts with Columbia University's earlier acquiescence to similar demands for $400 million, a move that resulted in ongoing repercussions without regaining the funding.
Columbia's compliance, initially presented as a necessary compromise to protect students and the university, was met with criticism from faculty and ultimately failed to secure the promised funding. The Trump administration proceeded with further demands despite Columbia's cooperation. This demonstrated the administration's true goal: not reform but to break universities.
Harvard's decision appears to be a calculated risk. Recognizing the futility of appeasement, they are willing to potentially lose $9 billion in federal funds to preserve their independence and institutional autonomy. The administration's strategy, as outlined by Chris Rufo, involves using money, power, and status to achieve submission. Harvard appears prepared for legal action and further repercussions.
The consequences remain uncertain. If the administration follows through on its threat, Harvard anticipates legal challenges. The administration, however, hints at further, more dramatic actions to pressure universities. Harvard's decision sets a precedent, suggesting that compliance doesn't guarantee protection, while resistance might ultimately be less costly.