Do not give in to Trump. Harvard has been a symbol of justifiable resistance to the current administration. Please remain strong!
Dan Aron ’60
Austin, Tex.
The right executive decision at the right moment would have begun at once lowering tensions between the federal government and Harvard.
Instead, President Garber missed the bullseye and chose to dig in, denying the government had any right to pressure Harvard to follow the Constitution’s most basic guarantee [of] human rights. No guarantee of free speech for ALL leaves no basis for examining the Truth. Without that education slumps into a heap.
A course correction made and stuck to for a good decade would convince me some decision-maker not enraptured solely by [talk] about free speech was finally in charge. It would give me faith I was not sending good money to a crippled institution.
Max Roberts, M.B.A. ’72
Portland, Oreg.
This year I made my first contribution to Harvard, because of what I consider a courageous stance by the University against a bully president. My $500 are a tiny driblet in the stream of income that is needed to offset the withdrawals of billions of federal funds, but, if multiplied by thousands of other grateful alumni, might amount to something. I hope they do.
Roy Nord ’70, G.S.A. ’76
Washington, D.C.
Harvard has lasted 389 years, Trump will be lucky to survive two-plus years in power. Midterms next year will tell us much.
Richard Gilman ’53
This week, the U.S. federal government stripped the University of its authority to sponsor visas for international students and scholars. In 1980, Mother Teresa spoke at my graduation there. The current message is that she and I are no longer welcome at Harvard. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard. The U.S. has done something so abhorrent and reprehensible as to be totally irredeemable. There is no forgiveness. The U.S. government has broken trust.
Patricia L. Morris, Ed.M. ’82
Vancouver, Canada
Return to the core educational subject matters and stop the fomenters of disruption of progress regarding the good things that made Harvard a center of learning. Yelling louder and destroying property and history does not make an argument correct.
I vote for withholding funds from Harvard. Paying lawyers is money not spent on education, research, etc.
Robert Berman
I support Harvard’s courageous leadership in battling attacks on it and higher education. However, I also see validity in the title of a recent article in The Hill: “Yes, Harvard had it coming—but Trump’s fix is still unconstitutional.” Curricular fragmentation and “wokeness” at Harvard appear to be concentrated in the humanities, social sciences, and education. Consider highlighted courses offered by the department of history among 360+ titles (it actually states such a number): HIST 12A “Communal Life Through the Ages: Monasteries, Cults and Collective Societies”; HIST 12B “Identity Before Identity Politics: America in the Progressive Era”; HIST 12N “Abolition Ecologies, Nature, Race and Labor in the United States”; and HIST 121 “Statelessness.” I had my own “history” experience with an undergraduate a few years ago. Asked whether Harvard still had a history requirement, she replied, “Yes, and I fulfilled mine with ‘The History of Foods.’” The founders regarded history as the most important field for statesmanship and citizenship. Would they regard current curricula as serving those ends?
Frank T. Manheim ’52
Kansas City, Mo.
Know that the world notices (with sincere concern and horror) the abuse over you as an institution by your local authorities. You are not alone, this does not pass unnoticed, and we all brace ourselves for you because you are the world’s best jewel in the temple of knowledge.
Stay strong!
Dr. Annie Tubadji
Swansea University
Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom
I was [in Cambridge] last week, for my 60th (!) reunion, in the crowd of alums who gave Alan Garber standing ovations.
If Harvard had caved, the way Columbia did, Trump would own all of American academia.
And he’d do his best to destroy it. This is from a recent New Yorker article about genius: “If the world really can be divided, biologically, into people destined for great things and people doomed to menial labor, there’s no reason not to abolish the Department of Education, as Trump has said he will, and to distribute the savings to the pet projects of the billionaires who got him elected.”
Elizabeth Block ’65
Toronto, Canada
Never been prouder of Harvard and President Garber!
Ernest S. Gould, J.D. ’64
Los Angeles, Calif.
Jamie Gorelick and I held an event at the Harvard Club of New York in May, on Harvard’s stand against Trump. The determined enthusiasm of the standing-room-only audience was gratifying. In my lifetime, this is the first time the fate of our invaluable institution has been threatened. I know that our fellow alumni will respond accordingly.
Roger Rosenblatt. Ph.D. ’68
Fort Lee, N.J.
When I arrived at Harvard in 1983, I was not a very political person but became aware of the student protests and uncivilized takeover of University Hall in the late ’60s. I was alarmed to hear about the lack of discipline the Harvard leadership gave to those students at the time for taking physical action, including engaging in kidnapping and destruction of property. I believe this set the tone that we still see today. During my time at Harvard, the secretary of defense under the Reagan administration was invited to speak on campus and was met with protesters who threw red-paint-filled balloons at him while he was on campus. This was not a respectful exchange of ideas, this was an assault. No meaningful action was taken by the Harvard administration at that time, which spoke volumes. Students should be encouraged to speak up but not to the point of physical action and harassment. Those who engage in this type of behavior should be expelled immediately. The lack of leadership at Harvard during the protests and intimidation of students in 2024 was appalling. I support the current presidential administration’s efforts to protect all students at Harvard, since the school’s leadership failed to do so.
Dave Mertz ’87
Boone, N.C.
What the federal government wants is good. The idea that Harvard is fighting goodness is bad. Stop fighting. Harvard seems to have no intention of being intolerant of active antisemitism. Harvard is on the wrong side.
Rick Lynch, M.B.A. ’77
Shrewsbury, Mass.
I’m a peon but LISTEN to Bill Ackman!!!!!!! Please!
Karl Mayer, M.B.A. ’84
Henderson, Nev.
You folks need to get back to your roots. Your left-of-center and anti-capitalist approach to education is making the Harvard education less relevant in the real world.
Mark Cavalli Sr.
A Donald Trump was inevitable. Congress abrogated power, and the current president was most careful in his selection of federal judges, especially to the Supreme Court. It takes all the fingers on both hands to point to the causes—then add more.
Federal [judges have] the option of retiring after 11 years at full retirement pay and perks. Render it mandatory. Second, close the floodgates of huge sums contributed to obedient candidates running for high offices.
Universities under attack have the resources to strike back. Use them.
Richard D. Gilman ’53
Lexington, Mass.
Trump has a good idea at [the] core. Tax institutions like Harvard, which benefit from government grants, subsidies, and exemptions but which are not politically neutral. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that places like Harvard are bastions of uncompromising, left-wing ideology is denying reality. The reality is that the Trump administration is more representative of America than Harvard. Real veritas might be too painful to digest.
J. Peter Rizzo, M.B.A. ’75
Waltham, Mass.
In my opinion, Harvard needs to fight the Trump administration threats to the nth degree. Harvard isn’t Harvard without self-oversight and the ability to accept students who will have the skills for leadership, innovation, and free speech.
Even if the endowment is threatened, we need to represent and continue the good fight.
The high road can be a lonely road, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it.
Marianne Romak ’85
St. Catherines, Canada
Harvard will long outlast this situation…Also, let’s combat the anti-immigrant issue with a positive note and say to all, “Be kind to a Spanish-speaking immigrant: ‘Hola Amigos! Los hombres quien sabe espanol siempre muy buenagente personas!’” You will get a big smile back! Many are living in fear. Thanks, and stay firm!
Stuart M. Resor, M.Arch. ’68
Suffolk, Va.
As a Harvard Medical School graduate, I feel privileged to have received superb preparation for the challenging professional and personal life that has followed. For this reason, I am concerned about the preservation of Harvard’s resources, intellectual strength, far-sighted strategic vision, durable orderliness, and predominant national stature with regard to the decades and centuries yet to come.
Within its first century as a fledgling institution, Harvard became intimately involved with the American Revolution and the support of the rights of free men. Indeed, General George Washington’s headquarters was in Cambridge during the siege of Boston. Now, 250 years later, as depicted on the cover of the July-August issue, Harvard appears to have chosen to take an adversarial position with regard to the nation that it helped to germinate. This creates a situation that is sad and mutually counterproductive, not a cause for celebration. There is no doubt that Harvard and the United States need each other, for numerous and obvious reasons.
Over the last 20 months Harvard has been faced with disorderly challenges that were not expected and with which it was not prepared to deal effectively. The roots of unintended disorder may be partially buried in errors of judgement that occurred during previous university administrations, but that is not the major point. The present administration must be responsible for preserving Harvard’s resources, heritage, core values, American identity, and productive function as a preeminent university regarding educational and research pursuits. Clearly, Harvard has needed help in dealing with disorder that has engulfed the University and set bad examples, emulated across much of the country. These management issues are not commonly part of normal university function, so there should be little hesitation in having constructive discussions with appropriate government agencies. It may be that unwise selection of international students and some faculty did occur in previous years. If so, this would be a correctable situation. It is also important that Harvard comply with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of two years ago, prohibiting discrimination in student admissions based on race or ethnicity.
One would hope that Harvard might quietly work together with federal government officials, defend its truly essential interests, make useful reforms as required, and emerge fundamentally unscathed after an uncertain period of time. Permanent damage must and can be avoided. The eventual outcome is what matters.
Although Harvard may be assured of limitless local support, perspective from outside Massachusetts and New England also matters. Harvard’s image from afar should not be taken for granted. Harvard played a key role in the early days of our country. Those of us who treasure our Harvard heritage would like to feel that Harvard will remain the highly respected centerpiece of American academia for centuries to come.
Stephen R. Smith, M.D. ’63
Towson, Md.
Frankly, I have a tough time understanding why Trump and his administration are now blocking funding for Harvard’s medical and other critical research programs. Keep up the good work and continue to have Harvard Law School file as many lawsuits as possible. Thank you.
Michael J. Burnham. A.L.M. ’95
Greensboro, N.C.
I was disappointed to see that your list of “key players” in Harvard’s fight against the Trump administration did not, with the exception of Harvard faculty, include any of the workers at Harvard who perform and facilitate the core research and education work of our University that Trump’s authoritarian attacks seek to stop. Harvard’s workers (e.g., researchers, student workers, technical staff)—not its administrative team, the Harvard Corporation, or even Harvard faculty—are those who have the most to lose in this battle. They are being forced out of lifelong academic career paths, laid off from the jobs they need to feed their families, and threatened by deportations and immigration detention.
Harvard’s workers were among the first to call for our University to stand up against authoritarian attacks and for higher ed’s positive role in society: several of Harvard’s unions cosigned a statement on April 2nd that read, in part, “Our resolve is to continue this work of the University—together. In the face of this multifaceted political attack, we will resist authoritarian intimidation by continuing our research and teaching, and by organizing in solidarity with one another. We call on the University administration to resist this intimidation with us, marshalling Harvard’s considerable resources and power to fulfill the promise of the University’s vital mission.”
Since then, and before, Harvard’s workers and students have fought the Trump administration in myriad ways: facilitating protections and support for international workers, spearheading legal challenges to grant cancellations (including the recent, successful ACLU case on DEI-related NIH grant cancellations—cancellations which Harvard did not challenge), and taking to the streets to rally against federal funding cuts. If Harvard is to emerge from this fight victorious, it will not be because of backroom deals between the Harvard administration and “Team Trump.” It will be because Harvard follows the lead of those of us in its ranks who embody its research and education mission and stand up for a Harvard that welcomes all to its mission of educating future generations and expanding the frontiers of human knowledge.
Kelsey Tyssowski, Ph.D. ’19
Medford, Mass.
One of America’s most effective statesmen, Benjamin Franklin said, “If you would persuade, speak of interest, not reason.” Donald Trump came into power by speaking to the “interest” of the populist vote leaning to the right, which felt disenfranchised by the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party.
Trump is strengthening his grasp of the populist vote by reinforcing its biases by attacking Harvard, which appears as the epitome of privilege and opportunity, bathed in an atmosphere of liberal thought and far beyond the reach of the average American.
To this moment, Harvard’s response to the loss of funding has been to sing to the choir of “reasons” why this loss of grants is bad, immoral, unjustified, or illegal. This action does not “persuade.” Any of Harvard’s legal gains in lower courts will be advanced to the current U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication. Legal action, although important, may be fruitless in this climate. Pontificating to the choir does nothing to regain the populist vote necessary to take back the House of Representatives in 18 months and end this American catastrophe. We must “speak of interest, not reason.” The populist vote does not see the “interest” it has in Harvard University’s research viability.
The average American is more likely to see Harvard as a house party of privilege than a gristmill of students working their way through long days and weeks in libraries, laboratories, and mind-searing examinations. If Harvard is to save itself and help preserve the nation, it must “speak of interest” to the American people. Harvard must remind America of its contributions in the past and give concrete examples of the programs and promise being lost in the present. We must persuade America that diminishing Harvard’s research is a loss to our children and our nation. We must persuade the populist community that Harvard’s research is of vital “interest” to the United States of America.
Michael Lawler, A.L.M. ’95
Avon, Mass.
President Garber,
All of the Harvard community has stood behind you during your dealings with the Trump administration.
We expect you to NOT COWER in submission to this outrageous and immoral attempt to shake down a payment for alleged antisemitism.
If you should do so, you have FOREVER disgraced one of the most respectable universities in the world.
Stand AFFIRMED…
Maintain not only the Integrity and Ethics of Harvard
But additionally, your own Dignity and Grace.
Cynthia A. Bell ’82
New York City
The White House’s desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million. But this is no guarantee that Harvard will EVER get any more grant funding.
Steve Beaver
Harvard University is a radically different place today than it was when I graduated from the Business School in 1971. Yes, it was very liberal, anti-Vietnam War, smug, and self-indulgent, but it was a lot more open and tolerant, especially of Jews. In fact, it was a most attractive place for Jewish students and faculty. However, today the opposite is true, which is symptomatic of the deep rot that controls the University and its management top to bottom.
Harvard should undertake a standard management turnaround and restructure, especially by outside professionals, which is what Harvard desperately needs.
Recommended steps:
1. A management turnaround and restructuring by outside professionals not chosen by the Corporation but by an independent Board of Conservancy to be selected by concerned alumni and alumnae.
2. End tenure.
3. Use the endowment to fund critical research and teaching until some government funding is restored.
4. Seek private funding sources to replace government funds that may not return.
5. Enforce all laws that prohibit antisemitism and hold all violators accountable by terminating staff and expelling students who are judged guilty.
6. Restore campus law and order as the norm with enforcement that is swift and strong.
7. Expect the turnaround and restructuring process to take two to five years and involve very difficult and painful steps, but the resulting changes will be the new Harvard restored to its previous level of excellence and respect.
William T. Nolan, M.B.A. ’71
Langrangeville, N.Y.
Harvard should absolutely stand up to the Trump administration’s brazen overreach. However, we should not forget that the nonsense that Harvard and other elite universities permitted, and even encouraged, helped Trump and his party in a meaningful way in the 2024 elections.
Howard Landis, M.B.A. ’78
Naples, Fla.
Regarding “The stakes are so high that we have no choice”: The first sentence of the article makes it clear that Harvard is being challenged not by Trump, but by those who would impose an “antisemitism” chill on academic discourse. Trump is the executive, not the initiator.
Harvard should police not only antisemitism but also its over-application. We could start here: discussion and criticism of actions, whatever the action and whoever the actor, is valid, necessary, welcome, and to be defended. It is, after all, the basis of jurisprudence.
William B. Rose, M. Arch. ’84
