Harvard University, the famous Ivy League campus, is accused of failing to deliver. That’s why more than $2.2 billion slated for Harvard has been frozen, according to the the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism.
The decision is grounded in concern for the safety, well-being and learning environment for a reported 700 undergraduate Jewish students who comprise almost 10% of the student body there.
Harvard President Alan Garber says the administration’s decision is about more than antisemitism and, for that reason, he says, Harvard will not comply with its demands.
The letter received by Harvard “makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote. “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.”
Indeed, the letter addresses the activist nature of some Harvard faculty and the school’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) practices and philosophy.
But from the standpoint of an “investment” in private education, Harvard stands in stark contrast with this administration in those areas.
Taxpayer funding for private education is not an entitlement, the White House noted.
“An investment means we want a return on the investment,” Utah House Republican and House Education Committee member Burgess Owens said on Washington Watch Tuesday.
“What we've shown over the decades is that Harvard, with its Marxist-based culture, has given us a terrible return on investment. They’re a private school, and I think what we're seeing now is a culture that is very arrogant and very entitled,” Owens told show host Tony Perkins.
Ivy League schools Brown, Princeton, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania have also had federal funds frozen.
Why send taxpayer funds to private schools?
Taxpayer dollars to private education may seem odd on the surface, but one primary reason is for the research and development provided by these schools.
These activities often lead to economic growth and job creation. Many Ivy League schools also conduct research that is important for national defense.
The research is real, but so is the failure for many of these schools to protect their Jewish populations:
- In the days after the Hamas attacks against Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Jewish students were pushed, shoved and harassed at anti-Israel protests at Yale.
- Princeton’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, admitted a rise of antisemitic comments and behavior after the Hamas attacks.
- Columbia became the epicenter for anti-Israel protests with its sea of green tents as protesters camped on campus in the wake of the Hamas attacks.
This hardball approach with the Ivies is long overdue, Owens said.
“This has gone on way too long with this entitlement mentality from folks who hate our country and are teaching our kids how to hate our country. So, at the end of the day, (let the administration) continue what they're doing. If they don't want to change, then we'll just stop funding them, period,” he said.
Aside from federal funding, Harvard has an endowment valued at approximately $53.2 billion, one of the largest endowments of any educational institution in the world.
Harvard Management Company oversees and invests endowment funds.
Owens suggests that Harvard rely on its endowment “and see how it goes for them. It’s a private school. They should do what they want to do, just don’t expect taxpayer dollars.”
Apparently, President Garber doesn’t believe the “endowment only” plan for Harvard would work. “Withholding federal funds from Harvard risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation,” he said.
Garber may be overstating Harvard’s contributions to the nation, Owens said.
“This is what happens when you get an ideology that doesn't believe in God, they replace it with themselves. I think they need a little check-up to recognize that we're going to do OK without Harvard giving us what they've been giving us lately,” Owens said.
Collectively, the Harvard faculty has shown significant support for political left positions. A survey in 2023 by the school’s newspaper, The Crimson, found more than 77% of faculty who responded identified as either “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 2.5% viewed themselves as “conservative.”
Free speech as long as it’s ours
The same survey found that much of the faculty isn’t interested in hearing from other viewpoints on campus. A whopping 43% openly opposed campus speaking opportunities if the speaker's views conflicted with their own.
Federal Election Commission records from 2017-2020 showed that Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences members contributed $744,143 to Democrats and only $3,010 to Republicans.
Despite the standoff over funds, or perhaps because of it, Rep. Owens said he is "excited" the funding threats have started a "conversation" about what is the best direction for the country.
"We're beginning to change our ways, and thinking about where we get the best return on investment," he said. "And that's where kids can come out without the debt, with a degree that means something, with ability to have competency and going to work."
