Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird leads 15 other state prosecutors in filing an amicus brief in support of President Trump’s decision to freeze $2 billion in federal funding for Harvard University, citing the institution’s inadequate response to campus antisemitism. The legal filing argues there is a clear precedent for such actions, referencing the 1980s when a Republican president challenged a South Carolina college over its ban on interracial relationships. Bird points out that Harvard’s failure to address antisemitism on its campus is a violation of anti-discrimination laws, and that the university’s $50 billion endowment and government grants are conditional on adherence to such policies.
Harvard University has faced increasing criticism for its handling of antisemitism on campus, with some arguing that the institution failed to adequately address incidents of discrimination and prejudice against Jewish students. While the university has made some improvements since Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., grilled its president and the University of Pennsylvania’s then-president last year, critics maintain that a stronger message must be sent to ensure that such incidents are not tolerated.
The Trump-Harvard case is not the first instance in which the federal government has taken action against a university for failing to enforce anti-discrimination policies. The case of Bob Jones University, an Evangelical college in Greenville, South Carolina, serves as a similar example. The IRS stripped the university of its tax-exempt status in the 1980s over its ban on interracial dating, a policy that was upheld in a Supreme Court case in 1983. The case, which was overseen by then-President Ronald Reagan, resulted in the government winning the lawsuit, with the Court ruling that the public interest in preventing discrimination outweighed any related invocation of religious freedom.
Following the decision, the university’s then-president went on national television to declare the institution was wrong in its prior race-based policies and officially ended the ban on interracial dating. The university has since stated that its goal is to exhibit a Christ-like spirit and biblical position, and today it enrolls students from all 50 states and nearly 50 countries, representing various ethnicities and cultures.
The legal battle over Harvard’s funding freeze is likely to have major financial implications for the university, which has a $50 billion endowment and receives billions in government grants that are conditional on its adherence to anti-discrimination laws. The funding freeze could have a significant impact on the university’s budget, particularly in areas such as research, faculty salaries, and campus infrastructure. The decision also raises questions about the role of federal oversight in managing the conduct of public institutions that receive taxpayer funds.