The strained conversation between Harvard and the Trump administration continued in public view on Monday with a letter from President Alan M. Garber to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda E. McMahon. Garber’s letter noted that the University had changed its practices significantly in the past year and a half but declared that Harvard “will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles” under the threat of government retaliation.
Last week, McMahon sent Harvard a letter, dated May 5 and published on the social media platform X, which informed the University that it is no longer eligible to receive federal grants of any kind. The letter made national news for its strident tone and Trump-like use of capital letters—the word “GRANTS” was written in all caps—but also because it did not cite antisemitism as the rationale for suspending federal funding.
Instead, McMahon’s missive made clear that the government’s demands are ideological. Her letter accused Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker ’81 of being “a Democratic operative,” quoted hedge fund manager Bill Ackman ’88 who said that Harvard has become “a political advocacy organization for one party,” and accused the University of failing to abide by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the consideration of race in college admissions. It also asserted that by educating “foreign students, who engage in violent behavior…,” Harvard has “made a mockery of this country’s higher education system.”
Garber’s response came one week later, in a letter addressed to McMahon and released to the public on Harvard’s website. In it, Garber struck a firm but pacific tone, emphasizing “common ground on a number of critical issues,” including ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. He stressed the value of a “multiplicity of viewpoints” rather than “narrow orthodoxies.” And he noted a shared interest in “ensuring that American universities continue to be global leaders in innovative and life-saving research that benefits all Americans, boosts the national economy, and serves the country’s interests.” Harvard “cannot achieve these objectives,” he wrote, “if open debate undertaken in good faith is unwelcome.”
While Garber’s language was measured, it was unyielding with respect to legal matters, characterizing the government’s “attempt to control fundamental aspects of our university’s operations” as “unlawful.”
“Consistent with the law and with our own values, we continue to pursue needed reforms, doing so in consultation with our stakeholders and always in compliance with the law,” Garber wrote. “But Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government.”
He enumerated some of the steps the University has taken to secure academic excellence, combat bigotry, and “ensure ethical governance,” including one of his first actions upon being named president: the appointment of Harvard Law School Dean John Manning, a conservative, to replace him as provost. Since then, Garber has chosen new deans at four schools, including the Kennedy School of Government and the School of Education. New fellows have joined the Harvard Corporation. And during the past year, a number of schools have reformed their disciplinary procedures, while Harvard writ large has adopted a University-wide policy for handling specific cross-school infractions of community expectations.
Last month, the University released two reports, one addressing antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias and another the problem of anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias. In an introduction to the documents within the letter, Garber wrote:
These reports detail an extraordinarily painful year for our community in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel. The challenges of that academic year have led to meaningful reform and recommendations designed to eliminate antisemitism and other forms of hate from our campus, which we have detailed publicly. As an institution of higher learning, we also understand that education is vital to fostering understanding and mutual respect on our campus and have made substantial investments in expanding the academic study of Judaism and related fields. These actions, from policy implementation to academic investment to community support, demonstrate Harvard’s commitment to combating bigotry in all its forms.
Even before the war in Gaza began, Harvard academic leaders and administrators had discussed the importance of intellectual vitality, academic freedom, and intellectual diversity. Garber’s letter indicates that more will be done on that front in the coming months “to implement and expand these initiatives.”
But he vigorously denied that the University is partisan. “It is neither Republican nor Democratic,” he wrote. “It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be. Harvard is a place to bring people of all backgrounds together to learn in an inclusive environment where ideas flourish regardless of whether they are deemed ‘conservative,’ ‘liberal,’ or something else, a place where assumptions and claims are tested and challenged, respectfully and thoughtfully, in pursuit of knowledge and truth.”
McMahon’s letter asserted that Harvard has not complied with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious preferences in admissions. Garber responded that the University was following the law. In Harvard’s efforts to build a “vibrant community” that “exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference,” he wrote, admissions officers assess the contributions that individuals make—their “unique characteristics,” rather than their race, consistent with the Court’s ruling.
One aspect of “difference” to which Garber paid particular attention is the contribution of international students. U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem previously threatened to revoke Harvard’s authorization to host international students. McMahon asked in her letter, “Where do many of these ‘students’ come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country…?”
In his own letter, Garber responded that international students “must meet the standards of performance and conduct we expect of our U.S. students. They enrich our community in many ways. We are aware of no evidence for the allegation that they are collectively more prone to disruption, violence, or other misconduct than any other students. They come to this country and to Harvard to learn and achieve at the highest levels, just as our U.S. students do. Their presence, talents, and scholarly contributions enrich our campus community and our nation.”
“Employment at Harvard is similarly based on merit and achievement,” Garber continued. “We seek the best educators, researchers, and scholars at our schools. We do not have quotas, whether based on race or ethnicity or any other characteristic. We do not employ ideological litmus tests. We do not use diversity, equity, and inclusion statements in our hiring decisions.”
Garber’s letter makes no specific offers, but it does seem to leave open the possibility for negotiation, or at least further dialogue. Many observers of the Trump administration’s suspension of funding for institutions of higher education have said they doubt that any capitulation to the government’s demands will result in the restoration of federal funding. But Garber’s letter does not preclude that possibility:
Research universities, including Harvard, have had a long and productive relationship with the federal government. That relationship has driven economic growth, innovation, and life-saving discoveries to the benefit of our nation and all humanity. We hope that the partnership between higher education and the federal government will be vibrant and successful for generations to come. As my colleagues and I have said, we welcome the opportunity to share further information with you about the important work we are undertaking to combat prejudice and to pursue our mission of excellence in teaching, learning, and research.
