Yesterday Harvard sued the Trump administration and accepted applause from the left for leading the resistance to the administration’s demands of universities around the country. But it turns out that both sides of this argument have, at various times, been hoping for a compromise which would avoid an all-out confrontation. Initially it was Harvard that was looking for a deal.
Harvard hired the same lawyer that the law firm Paul Weiss used to make its deal with Mr. Trump. Over the past month, as it became clear that Mr. Trump was ratcheting up pressure on Harvard, the school’s president, Dr. Alan Garber, looked for other ways into the White House — including a potential meeting with Mr. Trump himself, according to three people briefed on the matter. In late March, he called Jared Kushner, a Harvard alumnus and the president’s son-in-law, to ask for help. Mr. Kushner said he could not help…
Harvard then made an offering of sorts to its critics. The school said the director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies would be leaving his position. Conservatives had been pushing for such a move for months, arguing that the center fomented antisemitic views on campus…
On April 3, the White House sent Harvard an early list of demands. The administration didn’t cut federal funding, as it had done at Columbia, and the fellows at Harvard took that as an encouraging sign. The quiet back-and-forth between Harvard’s representatives and the White House continued for another week.
But the good vibes disappeared on April 11 when the administration sent Harvard a follow-up letter containing ten demands. Harvard President Garber saw that as a non-starter and after a meeting with the fellows of the Harvard corporation that runs the school decided to issue a confrontational refusal to go along. That was published Sunday and then the Trump administration responded by cutting $2 billion in funding. The school responded to that Monday with a lawsuit, something their own lawyer argued against.
Harvard’s lawyer, Mr. Burck, also tried persuading the corporation to re-engage with the White House, warning that litigation could be risky. The corporation told Mr. Burck it wanted to sue.
For its part, the Trump administration also wanted a deal. It reportedly reached out to Harvard to restart negotiations and each time it has been rebuffed. That seems believable to me simply because it seems to be how Trump prefers to do things. He likes to make deals but often he opens negotiations (as is the case with tariffs) by reminding everyone who is in charge and what is at stake. Similarly, I could see Trump making a deal with Harvard even now and reversing the funding cuts to Harvard. That seems to be where things are headed with Columbia as well, so long as they agree to at least some of his demands.
Some of Harvard’s fellows and many of its donors believe they should tone things down and get back to the table to resolve this. Even Harvard’s president admitted there was a lot in the letter they agreed with.
On a call last Thursday, Ms. Pritzker and Dr. Garber asked for input from about a dozen large donors. Many of the donors implored the corporation to slow down and negotiate for the sake of the institution, according to three donors on the call…
Dr. Garber seemed to concede that the White House had raised reasonable issues about antisemitism. “We agree with a lot of what is in the government’s letter,” Dr. Garber said, according to a person on the call.
Because Harvard is being praised as the leader of resistance 2.0, the school suddenly seems eager to play hardball. That’s a position that thrills a lot of progressives but not one that is necessarily going to work out well for Harvard in the long run. If certain demands the Trump administration made were non-starters, Harvard could make that clear in person without dragging this into court. Maybe cooler heads will eventually prevail, but at this moment it doesn’t look promising.
