In Defense of Academic Freedom
This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here.
Why defend academic freedom even when the ideas in question are wrongheaded or harmful? 'It is precisely because any kind of purge opens the gate to all kinds of purge, that freedom of thought necessarily means the freedom to think bad thoughts as well as good.'
Those words, written in 1953 by Joseph Alsop, an alumnus of Harvard who later served on its Board of Overseers, are relevant today, as the Trump administration cancels the visas of foreign students for viewpoints that it deems 'bad.' And they were relevant in recent years as institutions of higher education investigated and disciplined members of their communities for expressing views that ran afoul of various progressive social-justice orthodoxies. But Alsop wrote them in response to the McCarthy era's efforts to identify and punish Communists who were working in academia. Hundreds of professors were summoned by the House Un-American Activities Committee and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, forced to appear as witnesses, and pressured to name names––that is, to identify fellow academics with ties to the Communist Party. Many were then censured or fired and blacklisted by their employers.
'I have been profoundly and actively anti-Communist all my life,' Alsop declared in a letter to the president and fellows of Harvard, published in The Atlantic. 'Unfortunately, however, the question that confronts us is not how we feel about Communists and ex-Communists. The question is, rather, how we feel about the three great principles which have run, like threads of gold, through the long, proud Harvard story.'
The first principle he listed was the freedom to make personal choices within the limits of the law. The second principle was 'unrestricted freedom of thought.' And the third principle was one's right to due process when accused of breaking the law. 'A member of our faculty is not to be penalized for any legal choice he may make, however eccentric or controversial,' Alsop wrote. 'He may become a nudist or a Zoroastrian, imitate Origen or adopt the Pythagorean rules of diet. If called before a Congressional investigating committee, he may seek the protection of the Fifth Amendment, and refuse to testify on grounds of possible self-incrimination. However much we disapprove, we may not interfere.'
By standing for 'unrestricted free trade in ideas,' Alsop sought to conserve the university's ability to extend the frontiers of human thought and knowledge at a moment that has long been regarded as one of the darkest in the history of American academia. But as Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), documented in a 2023 Atlantic article, the threat to academic freedom today arguably surpasses the threat that existed in the 1950s. 'According to the largest study at the time, about 100 professors were fired over a 10-year period during the second Red Scare for their political beliefs or communist ties,' he wrote. 'We found that, in the past nine years, the number of professors fired for their beliefs was closer to 200.' More recently, FIRE has objected to the Trump administration's infringements on academic freedom, including the unprecedented demands that it sent to Harvard last month.
Supporters of academic freedom have every reason to fear that more colleges will be similarly targeted in coming months. One defense should involve consulting similar situations from bygone eras. Doing so can help identify principles and arguments that have stood the test of time—and it can be a source of hope. After all, the authoritarian excesses of McCarthyism, which intimidated so many, did not long endure. 'From the perspective of the sixties, the whole period has an air of unreality' for many students, a 1965 Harvard Crimson article—written in an era of 'sit-ins, summer projects, and full page ads criticizing U.S. foreign policy placed in the Times by hundreds of academics'—declared. But just several years prior, it pointed out, 'tenured professors thought long and hard before risking a statement on public issues; teaching fellows, fearful of antagonizing Governing Boards, were politically inert; and students retreated into silence and inactivity.'
I hope that, circa 2030, incoming college students will have trouble understanding the mounting attacks on academic freedom that began about a decade ago. Perhaps this period, echoing the Red Scare's aftermath, may yet be followed by a new flourishing of academic freedom. A renaissance of that sort will require defending people's rights—no matter how abhorrent one may find a given opinion. As Alsop put it, 'In these cases the individuals are nothing and the principles are everything.'
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
DOJ Says Harvard Committed 'Violent' Civil Rights Violation
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Harvard University committed "violent violations" of U.S. civil rights and is "among the most prominent and visible breeding ground for race discrimination," according to a new letter sent Monday to the higher education institution by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ), alongside a federal interagency task force. Why It Matters The agency findings against Harvard by the joint task force could carry major implications for both federal oversight of higher education and institutional accountability, in addition to federal funding. President Donald Trump and his administration has taken aim at the prestigious university, including earlier this month signing a proclamation blocking nearly all foreign students from entering the United States to attend the Ivy League institution. Graduates gather as they attend commencement ceremony at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. Graduates gather as they attend commencement ceremony at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29, 2025. RICK FRIEDMAN/AFP via Getty Images What To Know The letter, delivered jointly to Harvard President Alan Garber, states that the task force has found that the university engaged in a "violent violation" of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act due to what officials called deliberate indifference and, at times, willful participation in antisemitic harassment targeting Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus. Federal investigators stated that unless Harvard implements significant changes immediately, the Ivy League school risks losing all federal financial privileges, potentially jeopardizing its access to research grants and other U.S. government resources. The probe, led by the HHS Office for Civil Rights, concluded that the university's response to antisemitic incidents constituted both neglect and active complicity, violating statutory protections against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Citing the Supreme Court's opinion in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (2023), federal officials alleged that Harvard remains "among the most prominent and visible breeding grounds for race discrimination." The investigation concluded that Harvard's failure to adequately protect Jewish students reflects broader, systemic issues within the institution. The HHS notice warned that continued federal funding for Harvard may violate U.S. law unless the university addresses these issues decisively. The joint letter argued, "Any institution that refuses to meet its duties under federal law may not receive a wide range of federal privileges," underscoring the possibility that Harvard—if found noncompliant—could lose critical federal funding and grants. Officials said that the situation at Harvard represents not simply a failure to address specific incidents, but a structural climate that has allowed antisemitism to persist, prompting government intervention to uphold civil rights standards. The letter was signed by senior officials from DOJ, the General Services Administration, HHS, and the Department of Education. Harvard's Response Harvard University, in a statement provided to Newsweek following the issuance of the letter, called the institution "far from indifferent on this issue" of antisemitism and "strongly disagrees with the government's findings." "Antisemitism is a serious problem and no matter the context, it is unacceptable," the statement says. "Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community. "In responding to the government's investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue." It added that the university "has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias," and that it is not alone in confronting the ongoing challenge. Harvard's summary of actions and commitments, per its own Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, outlined multiple initiatives currently being undertaken. Some include strengthening academic and residential life and including more Jewish student representation; supporting belonging and promoting respectful dialogue; and updating campus use rules and other procedures. The letter claimed Harvard did not dispute the factual findings. The officials argued that the university's "inaction in the face of these civil rights violations is a clear example of the demographic hierarchy that has taken hold of the University." Details of the Investigation and Findings The HHS Office for Civil Rights found that Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard reported a climate of bias, harassment, and fear. The official notice outlined that "the majority of Jewish students reported experiencing negative bias or discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe." Specific incidents included assaults, being spit on, and students hiding their kippahs or Jewish identity out of fear. In addition, antisemitic symbols and imagery were widely circulated at Harvard, including images depicting a dollar sign inside a Star of David and stickers showing an Israeli flag altered with a swastika. Campus protests extended beyond peaceful assembly, with the task force citing demonstrations that, according to the agencies, "included calls for genocide and murder and denied Jewish and Israeli students access to campus spaces." The campus experienced a "multiweek encampment" at its center, purportedly instilling fear and disrupting academic life for Jewish and Israeli students. Disciplinary actions for those involved in these encampments and protests were described in the notice as "lax and inconsistent," with none of the charged students facing suspension and some university leadership criticizing the process as "not fair" and "not right." Potential Consequences for Harvard The notice specified that Harvard may "continue to operate free of federal privileges," but with the clear implication that all U.S. taxpayer funding—including research grants and student aid—could be withdrawn. The joint task force said the intervention was driven not only by documented harm to individuals, but by the historic dangers of ignoring antisemitism, invoking the Holocaust as a historic warning. Calls for Immediate Reform One in four American adults now exhibiting prejudice toward Jewish people and skepticism about antisemitism—an increase of 26 million people compared to 18 months ago—according a study released in May by the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism. "The enclosed document serves to focus Harvard on the need for meaningful and immediate reform and fulfill the requirement under law that Americans cease funding discriminatory institutions," the letter read. "Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government." What People Are Saying Roz Rothstein, co-founder and CEO of StandWithUs, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism, to Newsweek: "We are encouraged that DOJ and OCR utilized Harvard's own Antisemitism Task Force report to determine that Harvard is in violation of Title VI and issued an actual finding of violation. "This is necessary for any further action by the federal government, including withholding of funding, and a welcome development in the enforcement of Title VI. We look forward to seeing what steps Harvard's administration will take next to bring itself into compliance with federal law and finally make its campus one where Jewish and Israeli students not only find physical safety but equal protection under the law." Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights at DOJ, stated in the letter: "Harvard's inaction in the face of these civil rights violations is a clear example of the demographic hierarchy that has taken hold of the University. Equal defense of the law demands that all groups, regardless of race or national origin, are protected." The letter further stated, "That legacy of discrimination persists with Harvard's continued anti-Semitism." Josh Gruenbaum, commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service, U.S. General Services Administration, joined the co-signatories warning of immediate consequences: "Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government." What Happens Next Harvard University now faces a deadline to take actions requested by the task for or risk losing all federal funding, as outlined in the notice. Federal agencies have indicated that unless "meaningful and immediate reform" is demonstrated, enforcement actions—which could include cutting off federal research grants and support—will proceed. Continued monitoring and potential further government action are expected as the situation develops.
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump administration probe finds Harvard violated civil rights of Jewish students
The Trump administration on Monday said an investigation into Harvard University found the school had violated the federally protected civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students. In a letter to university president Alan Garber, the civil rights office of the Department of Health and Human Services said Jewish students on campus were subjected to "severe, pervasive and objectively offensive harassment" following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. The investigation found what the Trump administration described as a "pattern of unlawful and unchecked discrimination" at the nation's oldest university. These actions, coupled with Harvard's response, comprised a violation of the students' civil rights under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The investigation concluded that Harvard's response to the alleged harassment was akin to "deliberate indifference," the civil rights office wrote. "Harvard's public pledges to improve its disciplinary framework for harassment and misconduct are inadequate to meaningfully address these serious findings," the office's director, Paula Stannard, said in a statement. The examples of alleged civil rights violations uncovered by the probe include "targeted harassment" of Jewish students and "institutional acceptance of antisemitism." The letter also claimed that Harvard's response to earlier notification that the Office for Civil Rights had launched an investigation was, "too little, too late." The letter said that "absent voluntary compliance" from Harvard, the civil rights office would refer the school to the Department of Justice, which could file a federal civil suit against the university. In response to the letter, Harvard said that it has taken "substantive, proactive steps" to address antisemitism on the campus. "Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings," the school said in a statement to CNBC. "Harvard has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias. We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognize that this work is ongoing." The findings of the investigation are the latest in a series of escalating legal and policy confrontations between the Trump administration and Harvard, the nation's wealthiest university. In May, the administration announced it was terminating the remainder of its federal grants to the university. This final cut came on top of a grant freeze the month before that had amounted to more than $2 billion. Harvard is just one of several elite universities targeted by the Trump administration for alleged violations of students' civil rights. In May, HHS issued a similar notice of violation to Columbia University. Harvard has engaged in limited negotiations with the Trump administration, but paused them after the White House demanded federal supervision over the school's admissions and personnel decisions. President Donald Trump claimed earlier this month that the administration had been "working closely with Harvard, and it is very possible that a Deal will be announced over the next week or so." Trump said the college had "acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right. If a Settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be 'mindbogglingly' HISTORIC, and very good for our Country," he posted on social media June 20. At the time, Harvard declined to comment on the president's post.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback
Ever since New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's sweeping victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, it became clear that New York was only the first part of his political battle. Mamdani has faced criticism—not just from Republicans, but from within his own party. More centrist Democrats in both New York politics and in Congress have labeled him 'too extreme.' The 33-year-old ran on a platform focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers: freezing rent, making buses fare-free, creating a network of city-owned grocery stores, and offering free childcare for any resident with children between 6 weeks to 5 years old. These proposals resonated strongly with younger voters considering their future in an increasingly unaffordable city. More than half of New York families with children age 4 or under cannot afford child care, and grocery prices have soared 50 percent in recent years. Among Democrats and moderates however, his policies have made raised concerns over economic viability. Representative Laura Gillen, a centrist Democrat in Congress representing part of Long Island, told TIME that Mamdani's proposals are not fiscally sound. 'Saying things like 'we're going to give away free everything' is not realistic, and it's not the direction the Democratic Party should go in,' she said. 'They should find ways to make people's lives affordable in tangible ways, and say we will reach across the aisle to do that.' In response, Mamdani has emphasized how he intends to fund his policy agenda—a tax on New York's top 2% of earners, and raising the corporate tax to match New Jersey's 11.5%. 'It's not fiscal policy, it's quality of life [that forces top 1% New Yorkers to move away],' Zohran told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, citing a 2023 Fiscal Policy Institute study showing that the top 1% of New Yorkers leave at a quarter of the rate of other income groups. When they do leave, he added, it is often to other states with high tax rates, such as New Jersey and California. 'And ultimately, the reason I want to increase these taxes on the top 1% the most profitable corporations, is to increase quality of life for everyone, including those who are going to be taxed.' Democratic strategists in Washington are closely monitoring Mamdani's rise. While some warn that his brand of progressive populism could alienate moderate voters, others argue that his appeal to working-class and immigrant communities—especially in a high-turnout primary—offers a glimpse of how Democrats might reenergize a disillusioned base. Read more: What Will Really Happen if New York City Goes Socialist Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also weighed in last week, criticizing Mamdani during an appearance on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Asked about 'the threats facing the Jewish community from Zohran Mamdani,' she cited his refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and erroneously claimed that Mamdani referenced the word 'jihad'. Her communications director later clarified on X that Gillibrand had misspoken. Mamdani has been sharply critical of the Israeli government throughout his campaign and vocal in his support for Palestinians in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza War. His refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada'—a slogan historically associated with Palestinian uprisings—has drawn intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the phrase may incite antisemitic violence; Mamdani has countered that such interpretations are misguided. In his interview with Welker, Mamdani reiterated that the phrase is 'not the language that I use,' while adding that 'we have to root out that bigotry' from politics. 'I've heard those fears [of antisemitism], and I've had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why in my campaign,' he said. 'I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.' Mamdani has not received endorsement from prominent establishment Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries. He has however garnered support from more progressive Congresspeople, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, representing a schism in the Democratic party. 'I think the cost-of-living message that national Democrats maybe have gotten away from too much, that [Mamdani] really foregrounded in his campaign, is the best way to reach into these pockets,' political strategist and researcher Michael Lange said of Mamdani's success in an interview with the New York Magazine. Mamdani continued his media push over the weekend, defending his platform and tone across multiple outlets with a message that emphasized optimism and inclusion. On MSNBC, Mamdani was asked whether he had spoken to Sen. Gillibrand after his win, and how he had dealt with Islamophobic attacks from all sides in the aftermath of his win. 'I spoke to Senator Gillibrand soon after the victory on Tuesday evening and the comments that I've heard, especially from Republicans across the country and even the comments prior, during the primary, were comments that were both unsurprising and yet still quite sad, because they showcase what politics has become for so many,' he said. 'It's a language of darkness and a language of exclusion, and what has kept me hopeful through this is that our vision is one where every New Yorker belongs.' Read more: Meet Rama Duwaji, the Illustrator Who Met Zohran Mamdani on Hinge—and May Become NYC's First Lady He noted a significant increase in turnout compared to the 2021 primary, with notably higher participation among young people, immigrant voters, and voters of color. Mamdani ultimately defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fixture of New York's political establishment. He pointed specifically to previously disengaged Asian and Hispanic voter communities and many New Yorkers who he says 'saw themselves' in his politics. 'He was capturing younger voter energy across all races and classes, native New Yorkers, non-native New Yorkers, in a way that the candidates in 2021 just were not doing,' Lange explained. 'And that also extended to rent-stabilized tenants and to South Asian and Muslim voters.' On Meet the Press, Mamdani was asked whether the Democratic establishment fears him. Mamdani said that by bringing his policies back to 'working Americans' and an economics-based policies, this is how he was able to win over New Yorkers. Contact us at letters@
