In a rare and admirable act of institutional defiance, Harvard University has rejected demands from the Trump administration that would have compromised its autonomy, chilled academic freedom, and upended core principles of academia. The government’s letter to Harvard — citing a broad civil rights investigation — demanded detailed records, ideological audits, and structural changes that amount to an effort at direct political control. Harvard was right to say no.

In late March, the federal government warned Harvard that it was putting up to $9 billion of federal funding under review as part of its effort to ensure that the institution was properly addressing antisemitism on campus. That led Jeffrey Flier, former dean Harvard Medical School and Heterodox Academy (HxA) board member, to express concern that the government’s enforcement might undermine academic freedom and “potentially affect research and medical care unrelated to antisemitism.”

On April 11, three federal agencies sent the university a sweeping list of demands: make major changes or risk losing billions in research funding. While some demands — like ending ideological litmus tests in hiring — reflect reforms HxA supports, many others crossed a dangerous line. For example, the government called for mandatory plagiarism reviews of all current and prospective faculty and audits of departments it deemed ideologically “captured” — without offering clear evidence of problems or due process.

These are not reasonable steps to fight discrimination; they’re an attempt to control a university’s internal affairs while claiming failure to address antisemitism as the reason. As Harvard rightly argued in its response, the demands violate core constitutional principles and threaten academic freedom. No school should be forced to choose between government funding and intellectual independence, and certainly not without due process. In rejecting these terms, Harvard defended more than itself. It defended the very idea of the university.

In response to Harvard’s self-defense, the Trump Administration has now validated Flier’s worries by freezing $2.2 billion in research grants to Harvard, including funds for medical centers. The president then elevated the stakes by posting on Truth Social, “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’”.

Given the seriousness of the threats against Harvard, and the stakes for all institutions if Harvard capitulates, HxA is grateful to see the institution push back. But celebration is not vindication.

The administration’s demands are a serious threat to academic freedom. Yet Harvard's resistance will ring hollow unless it pairs its bold defense of independence with an equally honest reckoning about the internal failures that made it vulnerable to such scrutiny in the first place.

In a recent op-ed for the Boston Globe, the faculty chairs of the Academic Freedom Councils at Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton spoke of these problems:

While differing in our politics and much else, we recognized that our campuses had become intellectually cramped, with insufficient diversity in the range of ideas and viewpoints we teach and research. We witnessed the cancellation of speakers with unpopular views, saw some departments devolve into monocultures inhospitable to contrary opinions, and watched in dismay as well-meaning administrators implemented identity-focused policies that hardened boundaries between groups instead of dissolving them.

Lately, we have seen universities fail to adequately address antisemitism, tolerate protests that cross the line from expression to disruption and coercion, violate their own well-founded rules, and apply antidiscrimination and harassment rules inconsistently. The result is a spiral of silence in which students and faculty censor themselves, leaving public discourse to the loudest and most zealous voices.

To his credit, in his letter to the university community on April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber acknowledged some of these deeper issues, writing that the university has taken “many steps” to address antisemitism, and will do “much more.” Notably, though, Garber frames the university’s broader commitments as things it will “continue to” do: continue to “nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry,” continue to “broaden… intellectual and viewpoint diversity,” and continue to “respect free speech.” Yet many observers, including members of Harvard’s own faculty and student body, have long pointed to deep problems in these areas. If a 26:1 ideological imbalance shows viewpoint diversity, what would count as a monoculture?

At HxA, we believe the best defense against political overreach is a university that lives up to its highest ideals. Harvard’s moment of courage must now be matched by real reform. That means publicly affirming its commitment to civil rights and the open exchange of ideas — and then demonstrating that commitment through faculty hiring practices, classroom culture, and intellectual climate. America needs great universities. And it needs those universities to be truly great — not just in rankings, but in their commitment to truth, pluralism, and academic integrity.

Harvard just showed it has a spine. But now comes the hard part: Harvard must commit itself to the difficult, long-term work of building a culture of open inquiry.