OPINION: Higher Education Can Fight Back

In response to student protests— many centered around the war in Gaza— the Trump administration has threatened to pull federal funding from institutions that refuse to crack down on demonstrations it deems disruptive or politically inconvenient. Columbia University has begun negotiating to retain its $400 million in federal grants, while Harvard has taken a firmer stance, filing a lawsuit after the administration threatened a sweeping review of its $9 billion in funding. 

Harvard published the administration’s demands, laid out in an April 11 letter to Harvard President Alan Garber. They include full transparency on all DEI-related programming and race-conscious hiring and admissions practices, as well as details on how the university has handled recent protests, including disciplinary actions, police involvement, and internal communications. There is also a demand for more aggressive vetting of international students and scholars, thinly veiled as national security concerns. This isn’t just about compliance—it’s about micromanaging universities to align with the administration’s political preferences. The message is clear: federal funding comes with strings, and those strings now run straight through the White House.

The controversy has prompted over 150 college presidents, including Garber and Haverford President Wendy Raymond, to sign a public statement, published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, criticizing government overreach. Notably absent were the names of the presidents of Columbia and Dartmouth. The letter denounces the “coercive use of government funding” and promotes cultural exchange “without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.”

The Trump administration’s legal footing here is shaky at best. While some courts have held that the government has the right to fund colleges and universities under certain conditions, there should be no mistaking that this is an assault on free speech. Using money as leverage to suppress protest or punish political expression steps into dangerous territory. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that institutions receiving funding from the government, especially universities, are places where free speech must be protected, not stifled. No matter where you stand on Gaza, peaceful protest is a constitutional right. When the government begins picking and choosing which voices deserve funding and which do not, it is not just higher education that suffers—it is the foundation of free expression itself.

As Elon Musk— a self-proclaimed free speech absolutist— himself once said, you know you have free speech when “someone you don’t like [is] allowed to say something you don’t like.” By that standard, this administration isn’t defending free speech—it’s trying to redefine it. The selective outrage, the threats, and the targeting of specific viewpoints all reveal a desire not to preserve open dialogue, but to control it. Universities are being told that certain protests are unacceptable, not because they violate laws or policies, but because they challenge power. That’s not a defense of order—it’s an attack on dissent.

The danger here extends beyond campus protests or political expression—it’s about what happens when the government starts stripping funding from universities. Financial aid, research grants, and funding for scientific advancement are all at risk. Higher education has long been one of America’s greatest strengths, allowing us to lead in research and innovation, but this administration has shown little regard for the value of science or education. While the U.S. has long ranked poorly in K-12 education, higher education has been a bright spot. So why would we give that up? Undermining academic institutions is not just short-sighted; it’s self-destructive. Education is at the core of shaping people, the workforce, and the economy, and stripping it of its funding in a time when money should be poured into both K-12 public education and higher education is baffling. The effects of these funding threats could be felt for generations, weakening America’s competitive edge and its ability to stay at the forefront of global progress.

Liberal arts colleges, especially wealthier private institutions like Haverford, are in a somewhat different position than larger universities when it comes to these funding threats. With strong endowments and a smaller reliance on federal funds, they may not face the same immediate financial pressure. However, that doesn’t mean they’re exempt from the broader fight. In fact, these colleges have a unique opportunity to make an impact without some of the risk. Precisely because they can afford to take the hit, these colleges have a responsibility to swing first.

The normalization of Trump’s—and now Elon Musk’s—actions is a dangerous trend. But universities are starting to push back, and it’s about time. They have the legal tools and institutional power to challenge these threats, and they should use them. Universities should mobilize their legal teams, faculty, and alums to take a stand. With enough institutions standing firm, the government will be forced to confront the legal and political consequences of its overreach. This is a battle for academic freedom and free speech, and if more universities follow Harvard’s lead, the administration will have no choice but to back down.