“The University will not negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights.”

That’s Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard University, in a message sent to the Harvard community today.

Garber’s message is about the university’s response to a letter of demands from members of the Trump administration (Josh Gruenbaum of the General Services Administration, Sean Keveney of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Thomas Wheeler of the Department of Education), sent to Harvard on April 11th.

Garber writes of the letter:

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.

He then presents Harvard’s response and shares the letter written by its attorneys to the administration:

We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not negotiate over its independence or 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…

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.

You can read the full text of Garber’s response here.

Harvard’s attorneys write that the administration’s demands

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…. The 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.

The attorney’s letter is here.

UPDATE (4/14/25): The Trump administration has announced it will freeze $2.2 billion in in grants to Harvard and $60 million in contracts. The AP reports on this with the misleading headline, “Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard over campus activism“—uh, campus activism, AP? I guess they’re still trying to get back in the White House Press Pool. The NYT reports on it here.

UPDATE (4/15/25): Trump is now threatening Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

UPDATE (4/16/25): The New York Times reports on how Harvard ended up deciding to resist the administration’s demands. One key bit:

Columbia’s experience in recent weeks made it clear that any path the university chose seemed just as likely to lead to ongoing turmoil, and the Trump administration’s continuing treatment of the Ivy League university unnerved officials at Harvard, who feared the White House would renege on any agreement.

UPDATE (4/16/25): Perhaps inspired by Harvard, Columbia’s leadership, which had previously said it would agree to the demands of the federal government, is now shifting gears. It’s acting president, Claire Shipman, writes:

To be clear, our institution may decide at any point, on its own, to make difficult decisions that are in Columbia’s best interests. Any good institution must do that. Where the government – or any stakeholder – has legitimate interest in critical issues for our healthy functioning, we will listen and respond. But we would reject heavy-handed orchestration from the government that could potentially damage our institution and undermine useful reforms that serve the best interests of our students and community. We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire. And yes, to put minds at ease, though we seek to continue constructive dialogue with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.

Her full statement is here.