On Wednesday 3 September, a US federal court ruled that billions of dollars of funding cuts inflicted on Harvard University by the Trump administration were unlawful.

Judge Allison Burroughs found that the historic institution’s free-speech rights were violated when the president cancelled $2.2 billion worth of grants. The Trump administration originally froze the funding back in April. It accused the college of racial bias, antisemitism, and what it called ‘radical-left ideology’.

Trump’s attack on education

The cuts were just one part of the president’s multi-front attack on the Ivy League School, which included threatening its tax-exempt status. He also opened investigations into antisemitism, ties to foreign governments, and racial and gender biases.

In turn, the attack on Harvard was part of Trump’s wider assault on US higher education. In particular, the Republican administration made diversity, equity and inclusion programs a priority for attack as part of the president’s second term.

The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and Brown University were among those that signed large settlement deals in favour of their government. Harvard became one of the few major institutions to fight back when it filed its suit back in April. At the time, Harvard president Alan Garber said:

Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.

Ideologically-motivated assault

In a 26 August cabinet meeting, Trump told education secretary Linda McMahon “They’ve been very bad… Don’t negotiate.” He expected “nothing less than $500m” as part of Harvard’s settlement.

In her verdict, Judge Burroughs acknowledged that Harvard had been overly tolerant of hateful behaviour. However, she ruled that the Republicans:

used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.

She also added that it is the role of the courts to champion academic freedom, and that they must:

ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.

As part of her pronouncement, Burroughs blocked the Republicans from withholding existing grant payments. She also forbade the administration from stopping additional federal funding or refusing to award it in the future.

Far from over

After the verdict, university president Alan Garber posted on Harvard’s website that:

the ruling affirms Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights…

We will continue to assess the implications of the opinion, monitor further legal developments, and be mindful of the changing landscape in which we seek to fulfill our mission.

Liz Huston, a spokesperson for the White House, vowed to appeal the ruling. She branded Burroughs an “activist Obama-appointed judge” whilst claiming that Harvard:

does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future.

Trump’s assault on higher (and indeed all) education is part of a familiar authoritarian playbook, seeking to silence any bastions of dissenting voices. Whilst the fight is clearly far from over, Harvard’s victory offers hope for any institutions which still hold out against the rising tide of the far right in the US.

Featured image via the Canary