It is not Trump who is Harvard’s biggest problem, but some of the professors

If the American president and his administration were running out of reasonable arguments in their fight against the elite Harvard University, they would only have to open Thursday's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. There, Harvard historian Michael Bronski frankly and openly discusses in an interview what he is currently teaching his students. He is currently speaking in his seminar "about the concept of terrorism" and how the representatives of "Black Lives Matter" have been labeled terrorists.

Then he adds—whether regretfully or appeasingly is unclear—that he doesn't believe his students "learned any specific tactics." But it did give them a "systematic perspective on politics and activism." It almost sounds as if the university were a training camp for political activists and the professor an expert in urban guerrilla tactics.

But that's not all. Michael Bronski—his official title on the university's website is Professor of the Practice in Media and Activism—is a veteran of the gay rights movement. He knows from his own experience that he doesn't have to smother his students with Adorno or Habermas. He speaks as if May '68 were still to come: "You have to find ways to reclaim power. I want my students to learn how to understand their own power, how to increase that power."

Bronski then adds: The students should "develop the feeling that they have the right to possess power. (. . .) Power exists because we believe we have it." Compared to this, the academic teachers of the '68 movement seem like nuns. Back then, power was analyzed in order to destroy it; at Harvard, on the other hand, certain professors seem to be propagating the seizure of power.

A university with professors who so thoroughly misunderstand their teaching mission has a problem. And it's not Donald Trump. Michael Bronski will not be an isolated case; rather, he is a prototypical example of the activist teacher who has always continued his own lifelong and honorable fight for gay and lesbian rights in the classroom, always with different means and higher intentions.

Bronski is merely a symptom of a widespread political bias among elite American universities. Harvard has therefore become Donald Trump's favorite among many enemies. Since the beginning of the month, he has been implementing here what he first tried in other arenas – Columbia University in New York, for example. Far-reaching government demands are intended to restrict the independence of universities. This would place large portions of the universities' academic and entrepreneurial freedoms under government supervision.

Trump primarily cites their inaction after October 7, 2023, as the reason for the unprecedented crackdown on universities. Pro-Palestinian activists were able to freely express their sympathy with the terrorists in the wake of the Hamas massacre on the Harvard campus. Jewish students were victims of attacks and violence.

Trump's accusations are by no means a pretext. Harvard University officials themselves must have been aware for some time that they have an anti-Semitism problem. And not just since their president, Claudine Gay, was forced to resign after a brazen statement. It depends on the context, she replied at a congressional hearing when asked whether a call for genocide against Jews was compatible with Harvard's code of conduct.

In January 2024, Harvard established a task force to investigate alleged antisemitic incidents. However, a dispute erupted over the commission's composition. Former Harvard President Larry Summers criticized Derek Penslar, one of the two chairmen, for downplaying antisemitism at Harvard and previously rejecting the definition of antisemitism in America as too broad. Penslar also attracted attention for describing Israel as an apartheid state. Summers unsuccessfully called for his resignation.

The task force's mission was to publish an investigative report, but so far it has only published a list of preliminary recommendations. This, in turn, aroused the suspicion of the Office for Civil Rights, which issued an ultimatum on April 19 demanding access to the preliminary work and the editing of the final report. Apparently, there are fears that the task force might whitewash the findings of its investigation.

The Office for Civil Rights' warning was part of a barrage of letters that have reached Harvard since the end of March. In letters dated March 31, April 3, and finally a comprehensive list of measures dated April 11, the U.S. Department of Education harassed Harvard with massive accusations and drastic demands.

Harvard has fundamentally failed to protect "American students" from anti-Semitic violence and violations of anti-discrimination laws, the letter states. Furthermore, the university has failed to meet the intellectual standards of its teaching in recent years. It therefore no longer meets the requirements for federal funding.

The letter then listed a series of reforms, all of which must be implemented either immediately or by the end of August at the latest. Essentially, this involves an immediate end to affirmative action for minorities in the recruitment of staff and students. Merit alone should count. Furthermore, international students should only be admitted if they do not harbor hostile sentiments toward the United States and its values. Harvard must also commit to commissioning external reviewers to conduct an annual review of departments that permit and promote anti-Semitic harassment and ideological bias.

As a particularly harassing measure, the letter finally stipulated that Harvard must ensure full transparency with all government agencies. Specifically, the university should submit a report on the implementation of the necessary measures by June 30 at the latest, and every quarter thereafter until at least the end of 2028, when Trump's term expires.

Despite all the justified criticism, Harvard had no choice but to reject this paternalism, which amounts to receivership. It refuses to cooperate with government agencies. One can assume that this is exactly what Trump expected. He immediately responded by canceling billions of dollars in funding programs. He is now also threatening to revoke the university's tax-exempt status, which in turn would mean that donations to the university would no longer be tax-deductible. Harvard, for its part, has filed a lawsuit against the government's interventions. Meanwhile, Trump is firing back at X: Harvard is an anti-Semitic and left-wing radical institution with foreign students who want to destroy America, he posted on Thursday.

It doesn't take a prophet to realize that Trump's ultimate goal is to destroy Harvard and the other elite universities. Anyone who wanted to know could have read about it in the thousand-page "Project 2025" publication "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," which paved the way for Trump's second term. Its programmatic goal was to eradicate the quasi-monopoly of woke universities. Instead, students would be more specifically prepared for the needs of a dynamic economy, while leaving schools exposed to the vagaries of market forces.

Today, professors are speaking out here and there, timidly. Jonathan Adler, a law professor in Cleveland, for example, believes that some universities truly deserve to have their federal funding cut. But he points out that there are legal procedures that must be respected. The government compromises its goals when it attempts to achieve them through illiberal means. He's right, he says, but one wonders whether he had already raised his voice in warning against woke universities before Trump was in office and hadn't issued any ultimatums.