Academic at Harvard, Steven Pinker, voices concerns over 'Wokism', yet deems the Trump administration's threats to democracy as posing far greater dangers.
Harvard Stands Up to the Feds:
Here's the scoop on the epic showdown between Harvard and the federal government. It all started in April 2025, when Harvard saw its $2.2 billion in grants put on ice due to some hefty pressure from the White House. Donald Trump, our former president, was using his bully pulpit to battle what he perceived as rampant antisemitism and "wokeness" on college campuses. As part of his crusade, Trump sent letters to top-notch universities, including Harvard, demanding sweeping changes in higher education—all in the name of fostering "diversity" of opinions.
Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychology professor at Harvard and the co-chair of the University's Academic Freedom Council, called Trump's demands "Orwellian". This battle cry kicked off a lawsuit filed by Harvard against the federal administration.
Now, let's get into the juicy details. The lawsuit claims that the government is violating the First Amendment by attempting to influence hiring, teaching, and research to enforce ideological alignment. Harvard cites the Supreme Court's decision in the Moody v. NetChoice case (2024) as backing for this argument.
The lawsuit also points out procedural irregularities in the funding freeze. According to the complaint, the funding freeze bypassed required steps for civil rights investigations, such as voluntary negotiations, hearings, and findings before termination.
The freeze is no joke, affecting research projects that span the gamut—from tuberculosis treatment and chemotherapy improvements to space travel technologies. Stop-work orders were issued as soon as the freeze was implemented.
The timeline of events leading up to the lawsuit includes initial inquiries from the federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism in February 2025. By late March, grant reviews affected a whopping $8.7 billion across Harvard and its affiliated hospitals. On April 3, the university received preliminary funding conditions, and formal demands for institutional changes regarding antisemitism policies followed on April 11. By April 18-21, the lawsuit was in full swing, with Harvard making a clear statement: "no government should dictate what private universities can teach."
The lawsuit names a bunch of defendants, including the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Energy. Harvard argues that the funding freeze constitutes "arbitrary and capricious" final agency action, denying due process.
Stay tuned for updates on this legal showdown between Harvard and the federal government. It's an exciting reminder that academic freedom matters!
- Harvard's cognitive psychology professor Steven Pinker, co-chair of the University's Academic Freedom Council, labeled Trump's demands for changes in higher education as "Orwellian."
- The lawsuit filed by Harvard against the federal administration accuses the government of violating the First Amendment by attempting to influence hiring, teaching, and research to enforce ideological alignment.
- The lawsuit against the federal government by Harvard also highlights procedural irregularities in the funding freeze, stating that the imposed conditions bypassed required steps for civil rights investigations.
- The funding freeze has had a significant impact on various research projects at Harvard, including those in areas such as tuberculosis treatment, chemotherapy improvements, and space travel technologies.
- In the politics of the scenario, the lawsuit demands policy and legislation changes that protect education-and-self-development, war-and-conflicts studies, online-education, general-news learning, and academic freedom from governmental interference.
- The ongoing legal battle between Harvard and the federal government, with defendants such as the General Services Administration (GSA) and Department of Energy, could set a precedent for future cases concerning the balance between government influence and academic freedom.
