Published April 21, 2025
President Trump and Harvard University are at daggers drawn, and the battle promises to play out on the national stage for some time. Trump wants Harvard to change its ways, not only when it comes to the lax handling of disruptive demonstrations and antisemitic harassment, but also in the matter of the university’s pervasive leftist bias. Harvard, which seemed at least tentatively open to changes in its disciplinary practices, has drawn the line at the Trump administration’s insistence on monitoring and redressing its ideological imbalance. With virtually the whole of academia in chorus, America’s oldest university boldly insists on defending its First Amendment rights and academic freedom.
Harvard’s protestations of academic freedom ring hollow. Like the rest of the academy, the school has abused its liberties for decades, not to create a marketplace of ideas — the very purpose of academic freedom — but to consolidate an intellectual monopoly of the left. On the other side, however, the Trump administration’s more ambitious demands would put the federal government in effective charge of the intellectual inner workings of a private university. Although Harvard has richly earned that rebuke and that discipline, the Roberts Court may well be reluctant to entrench so troubling an arrangement in law.
Click here to continue reading.
Stanley Kurtz is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Beyond his work with Education and American Ideals, Mr. Kurtz is a key contributor to American public debates on a wide range of issues from K–12 and higher education reform, to the challenges of democratization abroad, to urban-suburban policies, to the shaping of the American left’s agenda. Mr. Kurtz has written on these and other issues for various journals, particularly National Review Online (where he is a contributing editor).
