Harvard Rejects Trump Admin’s Demands, Going to Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax exempt status next.

It's absurd the Harvard pays no taxes and gets $9B of federal money. Meanwhile their class sizes remain tiny, while they talk about equity and privilege, and play racial discrimination games where a black student has 10x the odds of getting in than an Asian American student with similar stats across all achievement deciles.

Please share a post SCOTUS ruling source for that statistic.

I happen to disfavor affirmative action too, but am often surprised how many rail against that while fine with athletic recruiting. They have the highest admit rates of all, and these are supposed to be academic institutions. Some people are just born more athletic; an average person can’t get recruited with just hard work the way they can get good grades or test scores with just hard work.

They haven't released all their admissions data to the general public. But what days we have shows pretty dramatic racial discrimination. Why are you giving them a pass from stuff they were doing just a few years ago?

Because it wasn't illegal then. 37% Asian for the class of '28 and you're still claiming they are racist against Asians? By the way, most of the Asians who work and study at top institutions, and there are a lot of us, are firmly anti-Trump, because we know better than to think he is on our side.

It was always illegal. The opinion says explicitly:

"For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful endpoints. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today. "

It was never legal to discriminate like that.

I don't like trump and I didn't think he is on our side. But I think Harvard was discriminating against Asians and it's weird that you have so much trouble admitting this very obvious fact.

Also, you are either lying or stupid if you are arguing that being overrepresented means you aren't being discriminated against.

I'm not even in favor of race-based affirmative action, though I can understand why others argue for it. However, it is one thing to be in favor of race-blind admissions, and an entirely different thing to get behind a dictator-wanna-be who wants to clamp down on free speech, defund science, start tariff wars, alienate us from former world allies, and impose various other ill-informed and anti-intellectual policies to ruin this country. You have to be delusional to believe that what MAGA is doing is in the interest of Asian Americans, or in the interests of the country at large. Moreover, you have to be immoral to support an administration who deports an innocent man without cause and sends him to a brutal foreign prison. And then even, though it was clearly done in error, said administration doubles down and refuse to bring him back. Are you really so fixated on the fact that it was harder for Asians to get into Harvard that you are willing to approve of what this guy is doing to ruin a democracy?

So you don't really like racial discrimination but you can understand the argument for it?

OK, is that any different from saying I don't really support trump but I can understand why they support him.

Similarly, I don't like defunding research and I wish he had simply moved the research from harvard to some flagship state schools but I didn't get elected president. If you don't like it, try not losing so many goddam elections.

If you can tolerate racial discrimination against asians for decades and understand why others argue for it, perhaps you can tolerate the persecution for an institution as privileged as harvard for a few years and bring yourself to understand why people are arguing for their reformation.

In the end, this particular move is not really hurting trump with the constituency he cares about. The working class voters from Minnesota to Pennsylvania do not have a lot of love for harvard. They think of harvard and the liberal elites as part of the problem. And as long as trump can keep the voters, he will control the republican party whether he is president or not.

I can certainly understand the possible good intention of boosting minority applicants in a pool to encourage underrepresented groups as well as low income groups, which is not the same as malice towards Asian people or white people or Jewish people. Just like trying to balance gender ratio at liberal arts colleges is not the same as being anti-female, or trying to balance gender ratio at Caltech is not the same as being anti-male. You can disagree with practice, but instead of just campaigning for admissions reform, you're content to see the best research institutions razed to the ground, and willing to see a whole lot of Asian scientists lose their funding. I also hope you realize that a significant portion of his stakeholders want to stop the "Asian invasion" of tech, medicine, and higher ed.

I wonder if you realize during the height of democrat and shockingly somewhat bipartisan support for stopasianhate during covid, republican senators introduced a bill amendment that threatened to strip federal funds from universities that discriminated against asians. That's all it did.

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/117th-congress/senate-amendment/1456

Literally every single democrat except one (absentee) voted against it.

Campaigns don't get much higher than a senate bill during the apex of pro-asian support in the US. If it didn't happen there, it basically wasn't going to happen in our generation, and it was basically uninamously rejected by democrats. I used to think that democrats were simply oblivious to anti-asian discrimination in colleges, but that was just cope so I could justify supporting them. They were aware of it and subverted discussion of it intentionally so it didn't look like they had self-conflcting values.

So there is no "campaigning" for admissions reform - that vote made it exceedingly clear it was impossible to go that route. If we wanted a solution, the choice was a faustian deal with the republicans. And considering this is probably #1 or #2 on issues that east asians actually care about, if there was ever a time to make a faustian deal, that was it.

[Anonymous]

^Same poster as above. This is all to say, if Harvard needs to incur damage in order to teach all the other universities a lesson to not engage with this destructively racist kind of racial preferences, so be it. Growing up I was taught the history of civil rights in the USA and I always wondered to myself how it could possibly be justified that this direct sort of insitutional racism against me was legal and protected.

I never came up with a satisfactory answer for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for them! Obviously, they can do it due to their deep pockets. But someone has to stand up to this horrid administration.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Same poster as above. This is all to say, if Harvard needs to incur damage in order to teach all the other universities a lesson to not engage with this destructively racist kind of racial preferences, so be it. Growing up I was taught the history of civil rights in the USA and I always wondered to myself how it could possibly be justified that this direct sort of insitutional racism against me was legal and protected.

I never came up with a satisfactory answer for it.

Please give me a break and drop the poor me asian attitude. Asians are WAY over represented at elite institutions vs their share of the population. Cry elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Same poster as above. This is all to say, if Harvard needs to incur damage in order to teach all the other universities a lesson to not engage with this destructively racist kind of racial preferences, so be it. Growing up I was taught the history of civil rights in the USA and I always wondered to myself how it could possibly be justified that this direct sort of insitutional racism against me was legal and protected.

I never came up with a satisfactory answer for it.

Please give me a break and drop the poor me asian attitude. Asians are WAY over represented at elite institutions vs their share of the population. Cry elsewhere.

Maybe be better and Asians wouldn't be so overrepresented. How badly do you have to be outmatched that on top of the penalty they get they're still overrepresented by a ratio of ~4:1 and you're crying about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Same poster as above. This is all to say, if Harvard needs to incur damage in order to teach all the other universities a lesson to not engage with this destructively racist kind of racial preferences, so be it. Growing up I was taught the history of civil rights in the USA and I always wondered to myself how it could possibly be justified that this direct sort of insitutional racism against me was legal and protected.

I never came up with a satisfactory answer for it.

Please give me a break and drop the poor me asian attitude. Asians are WAY over represented at elite institutions vs their share of the population. Cry elsewhere.

Maybe be better and Asians wouldn't be so overrepresented. How badly do you have to be outmatched that on top of the penalty they get they're still overrepresented by a ratio of ~4:1 and you're crying about it?

Im hispanic, quite frankly i could care less about your self pity….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^Same poster as above. This is all to say, if Harvard needs to incur damage in order to teach all the other universities a lesson to not engage with this destructively racist kind of racial preferences, so be it. Growing up I was taught the history of civil rights in the USA and I always wondered to myself how it could possibly be justified that this direct sort of insitutional racism against me was legal and protected.

I never came up with a satisfactory answer for it.

Please give me a break and drop the poor me asian attitude. Asians are WAY over represented at elite institutions vs their share of the population. Cry elsewhere.

Maybe be better and Asians wouldn't be so overrepresented. How badly do you have to be outmatched that on top of the penalty they get they're still overrepresented by a ratio of ~4:1 and you're crying about it?

Im hispanic, quite frankly i could care less about your self pity….

We’re talking about if it’s a good or bad thing Harvard is losing its federal funding…from the perspective of people negatively impacted by universities’ racist anti-Asian policies - which Harvard sets an example for…it’s not that bad a thing. Maybe good

Call it self pity if you want - but know it’s how other people are gonna view your problems if this is the attitude you give when they’re complaining about legitimate racism against them

[Anonymous]

Harvard had a good day and their arguments made much more sense than DOJ.

This outcome will have major impacts for all our great universities.

We need to get funding for scientific research back asap. Our students and grad students are relying on this.

[Anonymous]

The Harvard Crimson revealed an undisclosed memo that was sent to Harvard from the Trump administration, that had some rather draconian terms attached, such as a lien against all Harvard assets and a federally-approved provost to oversea departments. Five year ban on student government, and requiring Harvard to use trademark regulations to sue student organizations that were not authorized. Just to name a few things.

This was NEVER a serious attempt to reform or negotiate with Harvard. Never.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/23/harvard-trump-memo/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard had a good day and their arguments made much more sense than DOJ.

This outcome will have major impacts for all our great universities.

We need to get funding for scientific research back asap. Our students and grad students are relying on this.

The DOJ lawyer (sadly a Harvard alum) sounded like a dolt. The judge was trying so hard to understand the logic of the Trump admin’s case but it just wasn’t present. Such a waste of tax dollars to try this frivolous case.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/22/harvard-funding-oral-arguments/
BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday appeared skeptical of the federal government’s justification for freezing nearly $3 billion in research funding to Harvard, as lawyers for the two parties asked for a speedy decision in a high-stakes case that could determine the future of Harvard’s research enterprise.

Speaking in front of a packed Boston courtroom, United States District Judge Allison D. Burroughs pressed a lawyer for the Department of Justice to explain how steep funding cuts to Harvard’s research centers were connected to the White House’s stated goal of combatting antisemitism within the University.

“They’re not funding speech, they’re funding research. And you’re tying that research to speech,” Burroughs said to Michael K. Velchik ’12, who represented the government alone.

The nearly three-hour hearing saw University lawyers blast the Trump administration’s funding freeze as flagrantly unconstitutional and a violation of Harvard’s right to free speech. The administration’s campaign against Harvard “is a blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment,” Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for the University, said during oral arguments.

But Velchik argued that the funding cuts were a legitimate response to antisemitic incidents at Harvard. He pointed to the University’s widely panned response to pro-Palestine protests, including an encampment in Harvard Yard and the vandalism of the John Harvard statue last year, in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the ensuing war in Gaza.

“Since then, students and organizations have sued Harvard for its failure to address antisemitism, donors have stopped giving to Harvard, citing the antisemitism,” Velchik said. “Law enforcement has brought criminal charges for assault and battery against Jewish students.”

Minutes later, Burroughs interjected. How is combatting antisemitism, she asked Velchik, connected to pulling research funding?

The federal government, Burroughs added, was justifying “protesting Jews and upholding American values while, on the other hand, taking steps that are very antithetical to those interests.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Crimson revealed an undisclosed memo that was sent to Harvard from the Trump administration, that had some rather draconian terms attached, such as a lien against all Harvard assets and a federally-approved provost to oversea departments. Five year ban on student government, and requiring Harvard to use trademark regulations to sue student organizations that were not authorized. Just to name a few things.

This was NEVER a serious attempt to reform or negotiate with Harvard. Never.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/23/harvard-trump-memo/

And it was never about racism against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Summary: Trump flunkie DOJ lawyer tries to explain to Jewish judge why cutting a billion dollars in federally allocated research funding is linked to the Trump admin goals to fight anti-Semitism. The DOJ couldn’t explain why what it had done didn’t violate the Constitution.

Trump’s not actually paying for the DOJ to do his bidding so I guess he doesn’t care that he’s going to keep losing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Crimson revealed an undisclosed memo that was sent to Harvard from the Trump administration, that had some rather draconian terms attached, such as a lien against all Harvard assets and a federally-approved provost to oversea departments. Five year ban on student government, and requiring Harvard to use trademark regulations to sue student organizations that were not authorized. Just to name a few things.

This was NEVER a serious attempt to reform or negotiate with Harvard. Never.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/23/harvard-trump-memo/

And it was never about racism against Asians.

It’s not all about it. But one of the requests is meritocracy based admission-total compliance with SFFA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard had a good day and their arguments made much more sense than DOJ.

This outcome will have major impacts for all our great universities.

We need to get funding for scientific research back asap. Our students and grad students are relying on this.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Crimson revealed an undisclosed memo that was sent to Harvard from the Trump administration, that had some rather draconian terms attached, such as a lien against all Harvard assets and a federally-approved provost to oversea departments. Five year ban on student government, and requiring Harvard to use trademark regulations to sue student organizations that were not authorized. Just to name a few things.

This was NEVER a serious attempt to reform or negotiate with Harvard. Never.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/7/23/harvard-trump-memo/

And it was never about racism against Asians.

It’s not all about it. But one of the requests is meritocracy based admission-total compliance with SFFA.

Have you looked at the numbers? 70% of foreign students at Harvard are “Asian”. If the school went strictly on merit foreign Asian students would be about 75-85% of each class.

Jewish students would take a huge hit. Harvard and other Ivy League school heavily favor Jewish students in admissions, faculty and senior administrators(ie president). Jewish students are about 20% of the class at Harvard but are only 2% of the population. How many non Jewish presidents are there in the Ivy League?

Why should Jewish students receive special treatment at these schools while every other categories of student do not? 20% is extremely high percentage of the class. Everyone is quick to point to other minorities and claim they are taking spots but biggest set aside is ignored.