Federal Funding of Universities and DEI Programs Under Attack

Last week I blogged about the accomplishments and questionable actions by President Donald Trump during his first 100 days in office. I did not tackle the question of the fairness of cutting federal funding to the elite and other universities because of the way they oversaw student behavior on campus towards Jewish and Muslim students in light of the war between Israel and Hamas. I did not look at threats to cut funding for these institutions because Trump doesn’t like what they are doing. In this blog, I will address these issues as well as threats against campus programs in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Harvard University

First, let me say that it is troubling that Harvard University has to examine its handling of antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias that colors the university’s political and academic climate. This is arguably the most elite university in the U.S., yet their students, and even some faculty, have not learned to be tolerant and, indeed, accepting of differences in nationalities and religions. Perhaps the climate on campus is an expression of free speech. It’s true that free speech should tolerate differences in opinions on social and political issues. However, when it turns to violence against one group of students or another, such speech crosses the line between free speech and threatening behavior.

President Trump has threatened to cut federal funding to quite a few universities because of the way they oversaw discrimination against Jews on campus during the recent protests against Israel in its war with Hamas. Many Jewish students reported not feeling safe on campus and even being blocked from going to classes. There is no justification for such behavior and those universities that acted slowly, or not at all, to rein in discrimination on campus and threatening behavior violated their own  ‘safe space’ on campus. Safe spaces on college campuses create an environment where students feel secure and supported, especially for those who identify as marginalized, face discrimination, or are otherwise harassed on campus.  

As the legal battle over critical federal money plays out in court, two Harvard University task forces released a pair of long-awaited internal reports last week: one on how antisemitism and anti-Israel bias are handled on campus, and another on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias.  These reports are critical of the university’s political and academic climate. The fact that some faculty sided with one group or the other is troubling on a campus that should promote the fair treatment of all students, civility, and respect for differences in religions and nationalities. The place to address these issues is in the classroom or special seminars and with an open-mind and tolerance for divergent views.

The reports included accounts of both Jewish and Muslim students juggling profound grief over the deaths of loved ones in Gaza and Israel, coupled with fear for their safety and deep feelings of alienation and academic censorship on campus. They include several broad recommendations and policy changes for Harvard’s programs, admissions and academic programs. Alan Garber, President of the University, wrote in his letter that accompanies the report: “Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process.” Time will tell whether these initiatives take hold and become part of the culture on campus.

The reports indicate that 92% of Muslims surveyed at the university said they believed they were likely to face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions on anti-Muslim bias. Meanwhile, 61% of Jewish respondents felt they would face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions. The report recommends an overhaul of how students report antisemitic behavior on campus, faculty training on the issue and curriculum changes. More classes on the Israel-Palestinian conflict should be included in the school’s curriculum, the task force noted, suggesting that all introductory courses on the topic should be co-taught from a Palestinian or Israeli “perspective.” It’s a sad state of affairs that a prestigious university such as Harvard has to be told to do these things. One would think an effective reporting system exists, and having faculty training on these issues and curriculum coverage is a given. Shame on you, Harvard University!

The Trump administration froze over $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard University. This includes existing grants and a portion of multi-year contract values. The administration had previously threatened to review an additional $9 billion in funding, but the initial move was to freeze the $2.2 billion.

Harvard President Garber has said the withdrawal of funding and removal of tax exempt status would be illegal "unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move." He went on to attack what could be an existential threat to Harvard and other universities similarly affected. Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing the government has violated the university's constitutional rights by freezing billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.

Comprehensive Admissions Reform

The Trump administration also wants “comprehensive admissions reform” at colleges. It’s unclear what that means or how it would be enforced, but pressure to avoid scrutiny could affect admissions practices, writes Liam Knox for Inside Higher Ed.

Last month the government cut US$400 million in federal funding for Columbia University and sent a list of demands the university would have to meet to get it back. Among them: “deliver a plan for comprehensive admission reform.” The administration sent a similar letter last month to Harvard University after freezing US$9 billion in funding, demanding that the university “adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies” and “cease all preferences based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions”.

And in March the Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at Stanford University and three University of California campuses, accusing them of defying the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action in June 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed, including a request to clarify what “comprehensive admission reform” means and what evidence the administration has that admissions decisions at Columbia and Harvard are not merit-based, or that they continue to consider race even after the SFFA ruling.

Columbia acquiesced to many of the Trump administration’s demands, but it’s not clear if admissions reform is one of those concessions. When asked, a Columbia spokesperson said that “at this moment” the university had nothing to add beyond the university’s March 21 letter to the administration. In that letter, Columbia officials wrote that they would “review our admissions procedures to ensure they reflect best practices,” adding that they’d “established an advisory group to analyze recent trends in enrollment and report to the President on concerns over discrimination against a particular group. Here again it boggles the mind that Columbia hasn't been doing this all along.

Targeting Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

Last week, President Trump ramped up his threats to scrutinize the tax-exempt status of groups and colleges he disagrees with, calling out a prominent organization that’s fighting some of his actions in court. Trump told reporters “We’re looking at” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog group that has launched litigation against his executive actions and conducted investigations into what it alleges are his conflicts of interest.

CREW, in a statement, said: “For more than 20 years, CREW has exposed government corruption from politicians of both parties who violate the public trust and has worked to promote an ethical, transparent government. Good governance groups are the heart of a healthy democracy. We will continue to do our work to ensure Americans have an ethical and accountable government.”

This is an example of Trump's overreach in going after an organization that has frequently spoken out about the improper actions he has taken as President. It's troubling that he uses his office as a tool for retribution.

Tax-Exempt Status

Trump’s comments came amid reports that administration officials have asked the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which, if carried out, could hit the school with huge tax bills.

“I think Harvard’s a disgrace. I think what they did is a disgrace. They’re obviously antisemitic, and all of a sudden they’re starting to behave,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “But tax-exempt status, I mean, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege. And it’s been abused by a lot more than Harvard,” he said, mentioning Columbia and Princeton universities.

According to the Washington Post, officials at the Treasury Department sent the request targeting Harvard to the IRS’s top lawyer Andrew De Mello. The move followed the university’s refusal to comply with wide-ranging demands by the administration to change its admissions and hiring policies. The government has already frozen more than $2.2 billion in federal funds to the institution. Jason Newton, a spokesperson for Harvard, said in an email that “there is no legal basis to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.”

“Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” Newton said. “The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”

Trump appears unmoved (and uncaring) about laws that expressly prohibit the executive branch from asking the IRS to intercede in the audits of specific taxpayers. This is an ideal issue for which CREW should speak out against.

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Programs

The Trump administration is also attacking DEI programs on campus. Universities are suspending research projects, canceling conferences and closing offices in response to Trump’s executive orders banning DEI across the U.S. government. Arizona State University told researchers to immediately stop working on federally funded DEI-related projects and avoid using unspent funds. Michigan State University canceled a DEI webinar and began a review of campus programs to understand how they could be affected by the executive orders. North Carolina State University directed the faculty to stop working on any projects that include the terms DEI in the program’s proposal. Whether you agree or not with Trump's actions against these and other universities, the very act of a President attacking programs on college campuses is scary, to say the least. Where does it all end? Does Trump want to set the curriculum for any university receiving federal funds?

Governing by Fiat Using Executive Orders

The scope of executive orders has stunned universities. While Trump pledged during his campaign to end DEI, it seems that few, if any, universities thought it would affect research grants and other funding, expecting the orders to deal mainly with discriminatory actions against students on campus. Many universities have spent years incorporating DEI practices, values and personnel into curriculum, hiring and research. Among the executive orders recently issued, one directs federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants. Another would require universities to certify that they don’t run “programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws” when they get grants. I will address the issue of executive orders in my next blog.

Like most things President Trump has done for the past 100+ days, he acts first and then considers the consequences later. He believes the ends justify the means. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way he should decide on what actions to take, including executive orders, is to have an open dialogue with stakeholders, and that should include Congress whenever possible. The way in which Trump accomplishes his goals is just as important, maybe more so, than the outcome itself. An ethical path must be followed in that regard, something that Trump fails to understand.

By issuing so many executive orders, Trump short-circuits the ability of the American public to evaluate his intended actions before it is too late. He doesn't allow Congress to weigh in on issues that affect their constituencies back home. He can’t (shouldn’t) run the government by fiat.

Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 6, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.