Harvard believes it has a right — apparently a divine right — to the $2.2 billion that it has been receiving in federal funds and that the administration has now put on hold. The federal government disagrees; it has put two conditions on Harvard continuing to receive that money: first, that the university provide information as to how it is combatting antisemitism on its campus; second, that it end Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs at the university, which have allowed considerations other than merit — race and ethnicity — to be used in deciding which applicants to admit as students, and which faculty members will be hired, and promoted.
Law Professor Mark Goldfeder argues that this is not a First Amendment question, for the government is not suppressing free speech. It is merely attaching conditions for Harvard to be eligible for billions in taxpayer dollars. More on his argument can be found here: “Harvard, do you hear yourself?,” by Mark Goldfeder, The Hill, April 24, 2025:
Earlier this month, the federal government withheld billions in funding from Harvard. Last week, the IRS considered whether the school should even keep its tax-exempt status.
Harvard’s response? They’ve labeled these moves as somehow “unlawful.” But they can’t explain how, because they’re wrong.
First, as it relates to funding, no institution is simply entitled to billions of taxpayer dollars. The federal government has the absolute right to attach conditions to the programs it pays for, especially when it comes to compliance with applicable civil rights laws.
Contrary to what Harvard’s leadership may believe, this isn’t a First Amendment issue. The government is not suppressing free speech but exercising its own speech. And the Supreme Court has been crystal clear about this.
In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), for example, the court explained that “when government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says.” In fact, the court has persistently refused “to hold that the government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily discourages alternative goals.”
In short, there is no First Amendment issue here because the government is not telling Harvard what to do: Harvard is free to keep on discriminating to its own heart’s content — just not on the government’s dime.
Second, the IRS has full authority to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, and it is not a close call….
Harvard is free to make itself ineligible for billions in federal grants by continuing to permit antisemitic brownshirts to celebrate Hamas and call for the destruction of Israel, creating an atmosphere of fear for Jewish students and faculty, and by insisting on continuing DEI programs that replace merit as the sole criterion for deciding whom to admit and whom to hire. And the federal government is free to withhold funds if Harvard insists on refusing to comply.
LiveOak53 says
What is the solution if Harvard chooses to forgo the money and the antisemitism and anti US BS continues? Can senior administration officials be arrested? That seems to me to be the best alternative.
Taffy says
In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal statute that withheld federal funds from states whose legal drinking age did not conform to federal policy.
Congress passed the law that said highway funds would be withheld from any state that did not raise its drinking age to 21. Keep in mind that the 21st Amendment gave the several states and not the feds, the absolute authority to regulate alcohol within their Respective borders. The court held that conditionally withholding highway funds to achieve a result that they could not otherwise Dictate directly was Constitutional.
Trump‘s situation with Harvard is a little bit different because it involves the executive branch rather than the legislative branch. But, if it turns out that Trump did indeed have the authority to order withholding money, I see no real difference., As long as one can trace set authority back to Congress. Trump will argue that he has the authority to enforce the civil rights act of 1964 by this means.
Bexarkat says
It was too long ago these same goons who are complaining about inihibiting free speech claimed that “hate speech is not free speech,” when groups they approve of were targeted.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Harvard is still on their jihad against Uncle Sam on the antisemitism on their campuses, and this time, Jewish students are again being blocked from attending classes. Any tax exempt registrations that Harvard has w/ the government should be completely redacted, and it should be declared a terrorist organization unless and until they make it safe for Jews again
gravenimage says
Harvard’s Divine Right to Taxpayer Funds
Contrary to what Harvard’s leadership may believe, this isn’t a First Amendment issue. The government is not suppressing free speech but exercising its own speech.
………………………………………..
This is enormously common–that many expect a right to your money, yet seem to believe that any critcism at all is–somehow–preventing their freedom of speech. The idea that *replying* to freedom of speech, including critically, is *itself* freedom of speech is an alien concpt to all too many–as is the idea that you are preventing freedom of speech if you do not provide–and then fund–a criticism-free platform for them.
James Lincoln says
What Harvard administrators may be missing is the fact that having a degree from Harvard is now considered to be a liability when applying for “mainstream” jobs.
Rick Gordon says
This is the result of a very slow process that began with ‘ethnic studies’ in the 1970s and gradually accelerated into a focus on identity groups and critical race theory. Harvard is not alone but is a fine example of how bad it has gotten … and it will take radical change such as curtailing funding to get the administration, faculty, and students to notice what has happened to our culture and values in education.
Donovan Nuera says
Even political opportunist and strongest booster of the infamous and unAmerican “Cordova House” at Ground Zero said at Harvard’s Commencement a few years back (when he donated $100,000,000 to the useless Business school) that “Harvard brags about “diversity” in every aspect…except political speech”. WHEN Harvard takes a big drop and their lawsuit by President Farber loses, I hope a ton of kids from conservative families apply and flip the lobsided student affinity of 97% Democrat back to at least 50/50 and get good Professors tenured who leave their politics at the door. Harvard should want their students to look like America. Normal kids dare not say anything in the dining hall that might be politically correct or face the social media and school daily paper wrath of outing them….like the good little Red Guards they are.
Donovan Nuera says
They keep having these Harvard Medical School researchers on TV to say that even a mere 1 penny of Federal funds will destroy years of research. Call their bluff. If their research project is SOOOOO crucial in the fight against Cancer or Parkinson’s, MAKE THEM WORK EVERY WEEKEND UNTIL THEY HAVE THE CURE!!!! What’s wrong? You want to be too late to prevent deaths????
skeptiker says
Gut so. Jeder kann nach seiner Fasson selig werden, nur nicht auf meine Kosten.
OLD GUY says
It sure seems that we TAX PAYERS pay a huge amount of money to the research projects, so that these academics can play with their chemistry sets. When they do come up with something a pharmaceutical company ends up with the “science” and makes huge profits off our tax payer research projects. If it’s going to benefit the drug companies let them fund these labs.
sporticus says
The ivy on their walls has turned to varicose veins.
So, Harvard has at least two lucrative streams, free Government money and big dollars from Alumni.
It’s not possible to miss an analogy with the funding model for religious organisations. Since the time of Constantine, at least, the Churches have had tax-exempt status (which is equivalent to billions of dollars in tax credits) but also money flowing by tithes from the “faithful” (10% of their hard earned wages).
Two streams for the Churches.
Two streams for Varicose League Universities.
For either case, religious or secular, which of their two streams brings in the most cash?
In Seoul there is a Church which, a few years ago, boasted that it had the largest Christian congregation in the whole world. The money flowing into it from the Faithful was a truly staggering amount, like water flowing over Niagara. They didn’t need tax-exemption. Of course, the church leaders were less than holy and ended up in the Earthly courts.
That’s as far as the analogy goes. No government is going to go after the Churches the way the present administration is going after Harvard. And that’s just too bad, because if you want to stop Jihad and the Islamisation of the West the place to start is not by changing the law about Freedom of Religion but by changing the law about Free Money for religious organisations.
Churches in the benevolent West are like the ubiquitous mollycoddled domestic animals padding around their centrally heated homes -let them out into the wild and they whimper and moan because they can’t find any canned food. But Islam is like the feral wolf and has found the soft West easy prey by way of its Freedom of Religion and Free Money.
Harvard is a Church
Under Western Law, Islam is a Church-like organisation.
A Church is a financial drain supported by all people who work and pay tax.
Cut the tax parasites loose into the wild and see how they run or fall over.