President Alan M. Garber today disseminated a community message rejecting new, sweeping, and “unprecedented” demands from the federal government concerning Harvard’s internal academic affairs. He provided a link to the demands, detailed in an April 11 letter, which would, in the government’s words, form “the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.” On March 31, the government put grant funding to the University and its affiliates under “review,” and on April 3 it presented a sweeping list of broad requirements for Harvard to fulfill, extending to governance reform, changes in disciplinary procedure, changes in admissions and hiring, and abandonment of all policies and programs pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Reforms at Harvard, where necessary, “will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate,” Garber wrote. The University’s response, via its legal counsel (linked below), makes clear Harvard’s position that the government’s letter “presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world.”
Accordingly, Harvard’s lawyers wrote, “[t]he University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.”
And so, Harvard joins a battle with the highest stakes for academic freedom.
The Government’s Demands
The April 11 letter to Harvard in effect proposes to place the academic affairs of the institution under federal receivership—the most expansive assertion of government authority yet amid the Trump administration’s numerous threats to funding and internal operations at Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Brown, and Northwestern. Among the government’s proposals:
•Governance reform. This includes “empowering tenured professors and senior leadership…exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University” and “reducing the power held by faculty…and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship….”
•Transforming hiring and admissions. Harvard would have to overhaul its hiring and admissions policies by August 2025 and subject them to “a comprehensive audit by the federal government” at least through 2028. As part of the hiring mandate, all faculty members or prospective appointees would have to be reviewed for plagiarism. As part of the admissions process, “[a]ll admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government,” with public disclosure of information about applicants, accepted and rejected, “broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests….”
•International admissions. By August 2025, Harvard would have to stop “admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” among other requirements, with adherence again subject to federal audit.
•Enforced “viewpoint diversity in admissions and hiring.” Harvard would have to agree to commission an external party, acceptable to the federal government, “to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity” and to adjust hiring by department or field to remedy any found deficiencies—again, subject to federal audit through 2028.
•Reforming programs with “egregious records of antisemitism or other bias.” Again, Harvard would have to commission an external body to audit an array of named programs and academic units—including naming individual faculty members found in the process to have discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or to have incited violations of University rules after October 7, 2023, with the University and federal government “cooperat[ing] to determine appropriate sanctions…within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.”
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion. Harvard would have to “immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, offices, committees, and initiatives.”
•Discipline. Harvard would have to overhaul its disciplinary policies and “investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations” that occurred during the past two years, including named incidents, and expel students involved in an incident at Harvard Business School (which is currently making its way through the legal system, in pretrial stages).
President Garber’s Response
Unsurprisingly, Harvard and other private higher education institutions could not accept such sweeping, intrusive requirements—especially absent any due process under the Civil Rights Act (under which the claims about antisemitic behavior or failure to protect Jewish students are being raised). President Garber’s response follows; it is reproduced in full because of the importance of the moment and the issues, and the implications of the government’s demands for all private higher education:
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
- nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
- affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
- work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
