The recent announcement that the Trump administration will review $9 billion in federal grants and contracts awarded to Harvard, citing the university’s inadequate response to antisemitism, marks a dramatic moment in Harvard’s history. I’ve been a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty for 47 years, and I view this federal intrusion as an existential threat to the university I hold dear. I say this as a vocal critic of recent university culture and policy, including its handling of antisemitism. How did we get here?
In recent decades, Harvard, like many elite universities, has done a poor job of encouraging an environment where open inquiry, viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement can thrive. Through working with groups like Heterodox Academy and the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, I’ve been attempting to address these issues through internal reform. Real progress has been made, though given the complex and decentralized nature of the university, it’s not surprising that the pace of reform has been slower than desired.
The Trump administration has concluded that internal reform is impossible, so institutions must be severely punished or even destroyed and rebuilt from the ashes. This is dangerously misguided.
Private universities long ago ceased to be ivory towers independent of government, as they now receive substantial federal support for research and through student loans, along with favorable tax treatment. This growing financial connection permits the government to exert influence over university policy through civil rights law, producing outcomes ranging from the desegregation of universities in the South to several iterations of Title IX policy requirements. But current plans to close down or review vast portfolios of grants, including those from the National Institutes of Health, at Columbia and Harvard because of antisemitic actions on campus stand out as uniquely troubling and legally questionable.
While Harvard has more to do in responding to antisemitism, that issue could never justify reviewing $9 billion in support that could potentially affect research and medical care unrelated to antisemitism. Where did the figure of $9 billion come from anyway? I worry that this could include N.I.H. grants awarded to Harvard Medical School-affiliated hospitals and institutions such as Mass General Brigham, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Boston Children’s Hospital. This is on top of slashes to research funding already affecting research at the university and its medical centers.
Biomedical research carried out across the Harvard ecosystem is a beacon for progress across the globe, ranging from fundamental studies of molecules, cells and biological systems to therapeutic advances in cancer, cardiovascular disease, metabolic disorders and virtually every area of human health. N.I.H. funding supports a large proportion of this work, carried out by thousands of physicians and Ph.D. scientist faculty members and trainees. It’s unclear how the threatened review of grants will affect this extraordinary community, but losing momentum for this work and the care of patients could be dire.
How should Harvard’s leadership respond to this assault? That this question has been generating heated debate is no surprise, given the enormity of the stakes, financially and culturally. I can only imagine the intense and tortured discussions going on behind closed doors by the fiduciaries of our storied institution, as they seek to defend our core institutional values and independence, while also guarding the viability of numerous research programs. Even its $50 billion endowment with numerous use restrictions could not long withstand that attack.
Some faculty members argue for immediate and total resistance, justified by their concerns that the Trump administration’s actions are an assault on our democracy. But that approach could backfire. On the other hand, capitulation to unreasonable demands, as seemed to occur at Columbia University, would be a serious mistake. Even if many of the demands were already being pursued internally, accepting them without also calling out government overreach should be seen as a fiduciary failure.
My hope is that Harvard’s leaders will take policy actions they believe in and can vigorously defend on their merits, independent of any government interference. Though the timing may lead some to see such actions as capitulation, that view would be wrong if the decisions are clearly justified by a commitment to academic freedom and the institution’s values. At the same time, leaders should protest and take legal action against government demands that violate statutory boundaries and offend institutional values, ideally with other universities. If they follow that course, as difficult as it may be, they will have my unqualified support.
#Opinion #Whats #Risk #Medicine #Harvard
