OPINION: Harvard still wants its D.C. sugar daddy

Article content

“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

This defiant and bipartisan defence of the purity of education, delivered by Harvard president Alan Garber, sounds fantastic, right? After all, what society that pretends to value objectivity would dare to allow a government to control the educational decisions of private institutions?

Former U.S. president Barack Obama agreed, celebrating Harvard as a shining beacon of academic freedom.

“Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions — rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” Obama declared.

And if Obama says it, it must be true.

Of course, they’re ignoring just a few minor details, like the shameless explosion of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus in direct violation of Civil Rights law, or the fact that Harvard accepts billions of dollars in federal funding that comes straight from the American taxpayer.

Now, while it is undeniably true that Harvard has become a hotbed of antisemitic insanity in recent years, there is a reasonable debate to be had regarding the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands when it comes to broader issues of diversity and whether these violate First Amendment rights or exceed executive authority under Title VI.

But you know what makes me take Harvard’s self-described bravery in defence of academic freedom a little less seriously?

The fact it would be all too happy to keep cashing the federal government’s cheques.

Private institutions have every right to do what they want within the confines of the law. But the second you accept taxpayer dollars — and in Harvard’s case, billions of taxpayer dollars — you’re no longer an entirely private institution.

You’re private, but with a public backer. You’re private, but with a public credit card. You’re private, with a sugar daddy in government.

And we all know sugar daddies don’t give away their money for free.

What makes this even more absurd is that Harvard doesn’t even need the money! The university has an endowment of approximately $53 billion, which is more than the gross domestic product of most countries. Given its stunning wealth, you think it would be willing to put its money where its mouth is and refuse the money of a supposedly education-controlling authoritarian regime that is daring to care about Jews being hounded on campus?

Well, no. They still want that sweet, sweet federal government dime. And that gives the game away.

They could stand on their own two feet (like other truly private universities in the United States) and therefore earn the right to forge their own path. But if Harvard wants to keep its sugar daddy in Washington, D.C., it’s going to have to decide whether or not it wants to follow the sugar daddy’s rules.
 
Ian Haworth is a political commentator