Should Harvard enter into a deal with the Trump administration?
To Charles Kuck, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and an immigration lawyer, Harvard is in a strong position in court right now, so backing down isn't likely.
'I hope I'm not wrong, but my experience doing litigation for 36 years against the government is when they know they're going to lose, they settle,' he said.
But for Harvard junior Nuriel Vera-DeGraff, there are 'very few positive aspects' of Harvard making a deal with the federal government.
Vera-DeGraff fears that if Harvard makes a deal by backing down from defending its academic freedom, it allows the federal government to continue attacking higher education until it gets what it wants.
Read more: Judge rules Trump can't invoke national security powers to ban foreign Harvard students
The university has so far largely prevailed in court in lawsuits against the Trump administration. A federal judge granted two preliminary injunctions, allowing Harvard University's international students to continue attending school and enter the U.S. to study until the legality of the case is decided.
Harvard hasn't officially confirmed whether a deal is in the works. However, Harvard President Alan Garber privately told a group of around 60 international donors that the institution was in talks with the federal government, according to The Harvard Crimson.
Garber didn't expand upon the timeline or how the institution might settle with the White House. Instead, he focused on concerns about Harvard's community feeling uncomfortable speaking to one another across ideological boundaries or on controversial topics, the outlet said.
A Harvard spokesperson said the institution is continuing to fight in court and pointed to the federal judge siding with the university in the past two preliminary injunctions.
'Harvard will continue to defend its rights — and the rights of its students and scholars," the spokesperson said.
Read more: Harvard Kennedy's backup plan for foreign students: Study online, or in Canada
The deal follows a months-long battle between the university and the Trump administration.
In April, the Trump administration demanded an overhaul of Harvard's leadership structure, admissions and hiring. If the university didn't comply, it risked losing $9 billion in funding, the federal government said.
The actions were taken in the name of antisemitism, as the Trump administration claimed Harvard failed to protect Jewish students, particularly in the wake of the war in Gaza.
Harvard rejected the administration's demands and set the stage for a historic showdown.
The 'stakes are very high' both for higher education and the United States as Harvard considers cutting a deal with the Trump administration, according to Phil Hanlon, former Dartmouth University President.
'I think the Trump administration is likely to use whatever agreement it reaches with Harvard as a template for agreements with other universities, especially elite universities. And it's really important from the university's perspective that whatever agreement is reached, it allows universities to continue to be engines of innovation and prepare students to lead lives of leadership and impact. But I think the stakes are even higher for the nation,' Hanlon said.
If he were the president of Harvard, Hanlon said he would be looking for 'red lines' that the institution shouldn't cross — such as telling faculty what they can teach or what research to do.
Harvard student Vera-DeGraff said giving in to any of the initial demands from the Trump administration would be 'extremely dangerous.'
'I have a very hard time imagining the Trump administration agreeing to a deal that would be, I guess, 'mindbogglingly historic' in his words — which seems pretty positive from his perspective — that would not, again, compromise academic freedom in some way or free speech in some way," he said.
Vera-DeGraff isn't surprised by the prospect of a deal. He said he believes Harvard at least partially sides with the Trump administration, especially when it comes to suppressing pro-Palestine speech on campus, he said.
However, the damage of a deal isn't just theoretical, especially to scientists who have had their funding cut at Harvard.
The impact on research still remains in limbo even if a deal is to go through, according to John Quakenbush, Professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
'There is still so much collateral damage and it is unclear how things get restarted now that projects have disrupted,' he said.
'A lot of plates have been broken, some irreparably,' he said.
Harvard alumni, through Crimson Courage, whose mission is to stand up for academic freedom, sent an open letter to Harvard administrators on Monday morning calling for the institution to resist caving into the federal government.
They believed the university should live up to its motto of 'veritas,' which means 'truth' in Latin.
'We cannot stand for 'veritas' if we refuse to stand up for truth when the moment demands it or if we dilute our values because it is expedient,' said the community of Harvard alumni.
The Harvard alumni said that academic freedom 'cannot be negotiated away nor yield to political pressure and coercion.'
Read more: 'Devastating': 10 Harvard researchers detail 'essential' work set to be cut by Trump
In a separate letter to the Harvard administration, Jewish faculty, through Concerned Jewish Faculty & Staff, a group of Boston-area-based Jewish faculty, called on Harvard to protect free expression, academic freedom and resist the 'weaponization' of antisemitism in the negotiation process.
The group is made up of 150 Jewish faculty at Harvard and 24 other Boston-area universities.
'Those negotiations are framed by the Trump administration's groundless allegations of institutionalized antisemitism. The accusations have been used to suppress academic freedom and create a climate of fear at Harvard and throughout the US, particularly among Arab and Muslim community members and those who support Palestinian rights,' the faculty wrote in an open letter to Harvard on Monday.
Since Harvard's two lawsuits against the Trump administration began, the university has garnered widespread support, calling into question, for some, why Harvard would want to cut a deal with the Trump administration right now.
Twelve thousand alumni and other individuals and groups expressed their support through legal documents known as amicus briefs, including two dozen universities, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Council on Education, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — also known as FIRE — and Columbia Alumni for Academic Freedom.
During graduation and alumni day, Harvard President Garber had to wait on stage to give his speeches because he was met with unrelenting applause.
At Columbia University's graduation, by contrast, students booed the president.
It was in part a response from the university acquiescing to an ultimatum from the federal government — either abide by a list of requirements laid out for them or jeopardize its 'continued financial relationship with the United States government.'
Read more: Trump admin threatens Columbia U. accreditation over Jewish student harassment
While Columbia agreed to implement a list of policy changes, the university later pledged — after Harvard's decision to push back — not to make any agreement with the federal government that would 'relinquish our independence and autonomy,' according to a message from the university's president.
Columbia's efforts to negotiate haven't 'done them any good' as they haven't been any less susceptible to attacks, according to Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities and a former president at Mount Holyoke College.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Education threatened Columbia University's accreditation due to its response to campus antisemitism.
While that could happen to Harvard as well with a deal, Pasquerella said society 'cannot afford to say we're not going to listen to the other side.'
Harvard's president has been mindful of the impact of compromising academic freedom thus far and hopes the institution continues not to capitulate to the federal government's demands, Pasquerella said.
To Kuck, the power of the negotiation is more in Harvard's court because of the federal judge siding with Harvard on two preliminary injunctions.
A deal would also ultimately bypass mounting expenses for lawyers and associated costs with going to federal court, Kuck said.
Regardless of what happens: a deal or continued litigation, Kuck said the fight with Harvard accomplished its purpose — to paint elite institutions as 'outliers in American society.'
'They could fight and look like idiots, or they could negotiate and claim victory, which is what they'll probably do,' he said.
'The MAGA crowd will now move on to the next thing. All they'll remember in this episode, even though Harvard gets what they want, is Trump stood up to Harvard,' Kuck said.
Harvard subpoenaed in Ivy League tuition price-fixing investigation
Lawsuit: MIT professor harassed Israeli researcher, Jewish student as president stood by
Harvard Kennedy's backup plan for foreign students: Study online, or in Canada
Why a database of bug genes could be one of Trump's most devastating cuts at Harvard
Data breach affecting over 75,000 people at UMass leads to lawsuit
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nearly two-thirds disapprove of Trump's handling of inflation: Survey
Nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of how President Trump has handled inflation — one of his key campaign promises, a new poll has found six months into Trump's second term. The CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday also found that half of U.S. adults think that the Trump administration's policies have made them 'financially worse off' and 62 percent think the White House's policies have driven food and grocery costs up. Inflation rose by 2.7 percent in June, as businesses passed the costs of Trump's tariff hikes onto consumers. Trump has insisted, though, that inflation has settled as he has pressed Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. The White House has cited 'core inflation,' which excludes energy and food prices, as an indicator of positive movement on the issue. Core inflation hit 2.9 percent in June, below the expected 3 percent but up from 2.8 percent the month earlier. 'The USA is Rockin', there is VERY LOW INFLATION,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Friday. More than three-fourths of Republicans surveyed in the new poll said they approve of Trump's handling of inflation, while Democrats and independents overwhelmingly disapproved at 95 percent and 72 percent, respectively. The White House didn't immediately provide comment for this story, but it touted Trump's inflation record in a news release last week. 'Every month since President Trump took office, core inflation — the best measure of inflation — has beat or matched expectations,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday. 'The data proves that President Trump is stabilizing inflation and the Panicans continue to be wrong about tariffs raising prices.' The president has pressed for lower interest rates, but economists warn that such a move could drive inflation higher. The CBS News/YouGov poll found people were split on the issue: 39 percent said that the White House's priority should be keeping interest rates where they are to try to control inflation; 34 percent said interest rates should be cut; and 27 percent said they were not sure. The CBS News/YouGov poll surveyed 2,343 adults nationwide Wednesday through Friday. The margin of error is 2.5 percentage points.


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Over half of Americans say ‘big, beautiful bill' going to raise health care costs: Poll
More than half of Americans — 57 percent — said in a new survey that they think the GOP's sweeping package extending tax cuts and slashing welfare services will increase their health-care costs. Thirteen percent in the CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday said that the 'big, beautiful bill' will lower their health-care costs and 33 percent said there will be no impact. While the Congressional Budget Office has not yet released a final estimate for the measure as enacted, it projected that 16 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 under an earlier House-passed version of the bill. This analysis has been the basis for many Democrats' messaging around health care, and health-care advocates have still warned that the final version could be devastating to communities relying on Medicaid. The sprawling package permanently extends many of the temporary tax cuts passed by Republicans during President Trump's first term, alongside making deep spending reductions to Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other welfare programs. The measure would primarily benefit wealthy Americans, an analysis by the Yale Budget Lab found last month. Democrats have assailed the legislation as a historic transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and are looking to message around its cuts to health care for the 2026 midterms — even if some of the package's most significant changes don't kick in until 2028. Overall, six in 10 questioned in the CBS/YouGov survey disapprove of the GOP megabill. A similar percentage said that it will help wealthy people and hurt poor people. A separate AP-NORC poll released Saturday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans think the legislation will do more to help wealthy people. In the CBS/YouGov poll, 40 percent of respondents said they thought the measure will increase their taxes. Another 32 percent said they thought their taxes will not be impacted either way. A majority — 56 percent — said that they tied issues regarding the megabill significantly to how they evaluate President Trump's second term. A plurality of Americans, 44 percent, said they had a 'general sense' of the content of the legislation alongside some specifics. Meanwhile, roughly two in 10 — 22 percent — said they had a general idea of it but lacked specifics. The CBS/YouGov poll was conducted between July 16 and July 18, with a sample of 2,343 and a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points.

Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Amazon's quiet pricing twist on tariffs stuns shoppers
We've all had that moment when you're scrolling through an Amazon (AMZN) Prime Day deal, scoop something cheap, and feel like you're winning. Well, hold that thought. Though Amazon may still be handing out headline discounts, something a little less obvious is unfolding behind the scenes. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter It turns out that arguably the biggest name in retail just made a subtle move. Though shoppers might not have noticed that right away, the reasons behind it have everything to do with politics, and a promise that suddenly feels a little slippery. Image source: Bloomberg/Getty Images Tariffs may sound like a win for American industry. In reality, though, they often end up costing regular people the most. When policymakers slap duties on imports, they say they're looking to protect domestic producers. However, history has shown that those taxes almost always impact consumer prices. In 1930, the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act raised U.S. import taxes by over 50%. The result was that prices on clothing and home goods spiked, global trade tanked, and the Great Depression worsened. Fast forward to 2002. President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs as high as 30%. That helped steelmakers but weighed down automakers, appliance brands, and construction companies. Related: Top economist drops 6-word verdict on Trump tariffs, inflation On top of that, we saw a marked increase in unemployment, prices climbed, and economic growth took a hit. Even "niche" tariffs ripple far. In 2018, washing machine duties led to a 12% jump in prices for washers and dryers (those weren't taxed). The University of Chicago estimated that it cost U.S. consumers a whopping $1.5 billion per year. That's because businesses can only respond to tariffs in three ways: stomach the cost, move production, or pass it down the line. Most opt for the third, which leaves shoppers holding the bag, especially when smaller businesses aren't able to negotiate better deals or spread out the pain. More News: Bank of America quietly reboots Microsoft stock price targetJPMorgan reveals 9 stocks with major problemsRigetti shakes up quantum computing with bold advance President Donald Trump's tariffs today follow a similar pattern. The goal is to boost domestic output significantly, but it's likely to end up shrinking choice while hiking costs for shoppers. And when other countries hit back with their own tariffs, American exporters also feel the heat. Though Amazon insists it's committed to keeping costs low, a recent report suggests otherwise. According to the Wall Street Journal, the e-commerce giant has been quietly raising prices on hundreds of essential items since President Trump's tariffs were announced in April. From deodorants to pet food, shoppers are feeling the squeeze, even if they haven't noticed yet. Amazon tariff prices on low-cost goods increased by an average of 5% from April to July, the report said. That may sound relatively low, but individual items paint a different picture. Related: Major analyst revamps Nvidia stock price target after China surprise For instance, a single can of Campbell's clam chowder jumped nearly 30%. That's far from being a rounding error. It stings a lot more because Amazon CEO Andy Jassy had pledged to shield consumers from the fallout of Trump administration tariffs. They even doubled down during Amazon Prime Day deals, underscoring the importance of savings and affordability. However, in reality, it seems Amazon is absorbing costs on higher-ticket items while quietly letting prices climb on everyday goods. What's surprising is that Amazon sellers say they haven't upped their wholesale prices, suggesting the retail giant is looking to make a call on its end. Still, Amazon's rivals aren't following suit. Walmart recently lowered prices on comparable products, while Target is finding other ways to cut costs before touching prices. All of these positions put Amazon in a tricky spot. While it's still offering discounts on big-ticket items, its strategy on essentials offers an entirely different take, one shaped more by tariffs than consumer relief. As the Trump administration's trade policies evolve, shoppers may want to look at their carts as closely as their savings. Related: Bank of America makes its boldest AMD call yet The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.