Administration Attacks on Harvard Are Christian Universities Worst Nightmare
Establishing A Precedent that Could Be Used on Other Institutions
Ten days ago, the General Services Administration sent a letter to the President and Trustee Chair of Harvard University outlining the steps that should be taken to unfreeze federal dollars that go to Harvard. Most of this money comes in the form of grants for research or other scholarly endeavors as opposed to direct support for the heavily endowed oldest university in America
The letter ostensibly responds to events related to Gaza/Israel protests in 2023 and 2024. It calls for the expulsion of students who allegedly assaulted a Jewish student, the disciplining of any students involved in a series of protests, and demonstrate to a an independent third party that they have eliminated antisemitism and other “ideological capture” in a number of programs.
The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.
The letter further states that Harvard eliminate DEI operations in admissions (which was a whole Supreme Court Case!), and extend merit admission while maintaining a commitment to viewpoint diversity. It requires the elimination of any diversity statements in hiring faculty. And for some reason bans mask mandates.
But the letter also reaches into the very heart of the institutional mission. Under the guise of rooting out DEI, it requires the following:
By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. Emphasis Mine.
I’m not at all clear how Harvard can remain committed to merit and viewpoint diversity while admitting a critical mass of conservative students.
To their credit, Harvard said “no thanks”! President Garber wrote back:
“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,” Garber 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.”
Last Tuesday, President Trump used his Truth Social platform to imagine eliminating Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
"Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting "Sickness?" he wrote on Truth Social. "Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!"
Losing tax-exempt status could significantly inhibit philanthropic giving to Harvard. It could potentially interfere with its ability to participate in Title IV Federal Financial Aid (although most Harvard students receive scholarships).
Since Harvard’s refusal to play along and subsequent to Trump’s non-profit threat, members of the administration’s antisemitism task force now suggest that the letter was sent by accident and did not intend to derail negotiations with Harvard. Although others have disputed this claim.
All in all, I think Harvard will be fine. Given their massive endowment, international reputation, legal structures, and general public support — to say nothing of the unworkability of the administration demands — it’s hard to see where they will suddenly be an at-risk institution. The loss of research funds will, of course, have significant ramifications, at least until that funding can be replaced by endowment, gifts, or bonds.
Last week, I wrote this on my Facebook page:
For my whole career, I heard Christian University administrators fear that the federal government would require them to change LGBTQ policies or open up hiring or mandate that they teach particular topics. This is potentially becoming a real thing at Harvard. Has anyone heard the CCCU or the NAE or Christianity Today or any Christian University media shop speak out about these threats? I’m interested in tracking the response.
There are two stories in my book that speak to the ongoing concerns from Christian Universities that the government was going to go after them because they held to “traditional Christian values” — a message that is regularly highlighted by conservative Christian legal organizations. One story involves what happened to Gordon College ten years ago when the then-president signed a letter asking for religious exemptions on LGBTQ+ issues. A number of local partners stopped working with Gordon and conservative commentators were sure that they were going to lose their accreditation.
The other story involves the College of the Ozarks filing suit against the Biden administration over changes to Housing and Urban Development rules about homosexual or transgender discrimination in light of the 2020 Bostock decision. There was nothing in the decision that related to Christian univerisities and no circumstance where HUD policy would every relate to residence halls.
In the book I downplayed these fears as being impractical and not recognizing the balance of powers or the limitations placed upon government actors. I also argued that accrediting bodies make the unique mission of an institution central to their work and wouldn’t punish institutions for following their missional commitments.1
But what has happened to Harvard over the last two weeks has made clear that an administration unbounded by norms or regular protocol could do exactly what Christian universities have long feared.
What would it mean if future presidential administrations demanded “viewpoint diversity” at Christian universities? Could they require a certain number of agnostic faculty members so that students have a broader educational experience? Could they require those schools to teach evolution as fact? Could they eliminate hiring statements designed to support institutional fit? Could they mandate LGBTQ+ clubs on all campuses and the expulsion of any student who used hate language in response?
As my Facebook post attests, I’m still waiting for Christian universities or parachurch organizations to speak out about the threats to Harvard. So far I’ve got nothing but crickets.
The good news is that Harvard has shown that it’s possible to push back against such egregious and anti-intellectual demands. But most schools don’t have Harvard’s reputation, legal prowess, or financial wherewithal. They would be far more likely to comply rather than fight, especially without a coordinated response.2
UPDATE: Late today, Harvard filed suit against the Trump Administration.
I did a peer reviewer training on the revised Higher Learning Commission policies for accreditation. The missional commitment is even stronger in the 2025 revisions that it was in prior iterations.
It is encouraging to see Rutgers trying to build a collaborative across the increasingly misnamed Big Ten (now with 18 schools).
Thanks for a great analysis, John. Since the federal government is attempting to interfere with the freedom of even private institutions to educate in the way that aligns with their mission, why do you think Christian institutions are not speaking out against it? Do you think they aren't cognizant of the threat?
A number of administrators at Catholic universities signed the AAC&U's open letter, "A call for constructive engagement", but I don't see any CCCU signatories so far.