Speaker 1: Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily OS. Oh,
Speaker 1: now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
Speaker 2: the seventeenth of April. I'm Zara Seidler.
Speaker 1: I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 2: Harvard University is facing a major financial blow after the
Speaker 2: Trump administration froze two point two billion dollars in federal
Speaker 2: funding this week. The prestigious institution has refused to comply
Speaker 2: with a series of government demands relating to both diversity
Speaker 2: policies and anti semitism. Today, we're unpacking what's happened in
Speaker 2: this unprecedented standoff between one of America's most elite universities
Speaker 2: and the White House.
Speaker 1: Zara, this is a pretty significant development in President Trump's
Speaker 1: relationship with universities, American universities, which is some of the
Speaker 1: most famous in the world. Can you break down exactly
Speaker 1: what's happened here though with Harvard?
Speaker 2: So earlier this week, the Trump administration announced that it
Speaker 2: was freezing around two point two billion US dollars, So
Speaker 2: that's around three point five billion Australian dollars in grants
Speaker 2: to Harvard Universities. Now, that came in response to Harvard
Speaker 2: refusing to comply with a list of demands that came
Speaker 2: from the government. Now, as you said, there is some
Speaker 2: context here between the relationship of the Trump administration and
Speaker 2: specifically higher education in the United States, and more specifically,
Speaker 2: over the last several weeks, we've really seen the Trump
Speaker 2: administration putting this increased pressure on universities, specifically focusing around
Speaker 2: two main issues. Now, those issues are anti semitism on
Speaker 2: campuses and DEI, which we know stands for diversity, equity
Speaker 2: and inclusion when it comes to hiring and admission practices. Now,
Speaker 2: the government has been warning universities that if they don't
Speaker 2: comply with their demands on these issues, they could stand
Speaker 2: to lose billions in federal funding.
Speaker 1: Okay, so before we get into the specific demands, can
Speaker 1: you give us a bit of background on Harvard's relationship
Speaker 1: with government funding. Yes.
Speaker 2: So, I'm sure many of our listeners are familiar with Harvard.
Speaker 2: It's one of, if not the world's, most prestigious universities.
Speaker 1: It's a Lacrosse did not go there.
Speaker 2: Mike Ross from since did not attend, but many other
Speaker 2: famous people have attended. Its alumni and faculty have earned
Speaker 2: more than one hundred and sixty Nobel Prizes, with the
Speaker 2: most recent one being awarded just this year. And I
Speaker 2: think that that paints a very clear picture about the
Speaker 2: caliber of participants at this college. And when it comes
Speaker 2: to finances, like many other colleges, Harvard has an endowment,
Speaker 2: So that's basically a fund of donated money that has
Speaker 2: been incoming into the college. Now, Harvard's endowment stands at
Speaker 2: around fifty billion dollars, whoa heaps of money. However, the
Speaker 2: university does still rely quite heavily on federal funding for
Speaker 2: research in particular. In fact, in twenty twenty four, the
Speaker 2: US government supplied about sixty eight percent of Harvard's outside
Speaker 2: research funding. So the freeze that we've been talking about
Speaker 2: represents quite a significant portion of federal research grants and
Speaker 2: contracts for Harvard.
Speaker 1: So how did we get here? I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a really major escalation. There is so much going on
Speaker 1: in the Trump administration at the moment, it's interesting that
Speaker 1: we got to this point. What led to this standoff?
Speaker 2: Look, the short answer here is that this has been
Speaker 2: brewing for a long time.
Speaker 3: It hasn't come out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: Both during the campaign and then once Donald Trump was inaugurated,
Speaker 2: he made very clear that he had colleges, especially Ivy
Speaker 2: League colleges, which are kind of the upper echelon of
Speaker 2: US colleges, He had them in his sites, and he
Speaker 2: has stood firm on that. He believes that they need
Speaker 2: to be doing more on anti semitism, and he believes
Speaker 2: that there is too much of a focus on DEI,
Speaker 2: so those diversity and inclusion programs at these colleges, and
Speaker 2: so over the past couple of months, he's basically been
Speaker 2: implementing this crackdown on those colleges. When it comes to
Speaker 2: Harvard in particular, though, this started on March thirty first,
Speaker 2: when the White House announced that it was conducting a
Speaker 2: review of Harvard's federal contracts and grants, specifically with the
Speaker 2: aim to combat anti semitism. Then last Friday, the administration
Speaker 2: sent a letter to Harvard's president, doctor Alan Garba, stating
Speaker 2: that the university had quote failed to live up to
Speaker 2: both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.
Speaker 1: I's strongly worded.
Speaker 2: Very I mean, if there's one thing about this story,
Speaker 2: it's that nothing has been lightly worded on either side here. Basically,
Speaker 2: though that letter that I was just talking about that
Speaker 2: was sent last Friday, detailed a list of demands from
Speaker 2: the Trump administration to Harvard that the college would need
Speaker 2: to meet in order to maintain its federal funding.
Speaker 1: And what type When you said demands, what type of
Speaker 1: thing are you talking about here? You're talking about like
Speaker 1: course curriculums and all of that question.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is quite unfamiliar to an Australian audience,
Speaker 2: and it is fairly unprecedented until now to have a
Speaker 2: sort of list of demands sent to a private institution.
Speaker 2: The demands are themselves pretty extensive, so I guess I'll
Speaker 2: just go through a high level run through of what
Speaker 2: they are. So, the government wants Harvard to hire independent
Speaker 2: auditors to ensure that its departments have what they call
Speaker 2: diverse viewpoints, though we don't actually get any elaboration in
Speaker 2: the letter about what that means. Other demands include the
Speaker 2: government wanting oversight of Harvard's hiring, promotions, and admissions processes.
Speaker 2: They've also demanded that Harvard reject applicants from non US
Speaker 2: citizens who are deemed to be hostile to American values.
Speaker 2: That's a direct quote there, but again that term isn't
Speaker 2: actually defined On top of that, the government wants Harvard
Speaker 2: to report any international student accused of breaking university rules
Speaker 2: directly to the federal government, so rather than working through
Speaker 2: an internal process, that that process be expedited and sent
Speaker 2: straight to the government. The administration also calls for a
Speaker 2: ban on face masks and an end to funding quote
Speaker 2: any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity,
Speaker 2: illegal violence, or illegal harassment. Now that's kind of the
Speaker 2: clearest link made to the pro Palestinian protests that we
Speaker 2: saw on college campuses, the encampments that we saw last year.
Speaker 2: But then the Trump administration also requests that Harvard reforms
Speaker 2: programs with egregious records of anti Semitism or other bias.
Speaker 1: And by programs them in courses right.
Speaker 3: Yes, and departments.
Speaker 2: So a similar request was made of Columbia, and they
Speaker 2: basically had to move the management of the Middle East
Speaker 2: department at that college under different management. And so they
Speaker 2: are looking for Harvard here to commission an external party,
Speaker 2: and that external party needs to be a pro by
Speaker 2: the government themselves to audit those programs and departments that
Speaker 2: they say most fuel antisemitic harassment.
Speaker 1: So this is clearly not business as usual. No, in
Speaker 1: terms of the standard relationship between a government and a
Speaker 1: US university. How has Harvard now responded to these demands.
Speaker 2: Well, Harvard has pretty firmly rejected those demands.
Speaker 1: Which puts funding on the line right well exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's why we're talking about it today. So
Speaker 2: doctor Alan Garba, who I mentioned was the president, he
Speaker 2: came out with a very strongly worded statement where he said,
Speaker 2: no government, regardless of which party is in power, should
Speaker 2: dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit
Speaker 2: and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they
Speaker 2: can pursue. We were then shown a letter from Harvard
Speaker 2: lawyers who argued that the demands by the Trump administration
Speaker 2: violate Harvard's right to free speech and that they also
Speaker 2: exceed the government's authority. I was reading through that letter
Speaker 2: and I'll just pull out a few of the key quotes.
Speaker 2: The lawyers claim that Harvard is committed to fighting anti
Speaker 2: Semitism and other forms of bigotry, and that anti Semitism
Speaker 2: and discrimination of any kind not only are a borrant
Speaker 2: and antithetical to Harvard's values, but also threaten its academic mission.
Speaker 2: But ultimately then the letter by those lawyers concludes that
Speaker 2: Harvard is not prepared to agree to the demands that
Speaker 2: go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.
Speaker 2: And so we have there a refusal by Harvard to
Speaker 2: respond to the demands or to make the change that
Speaker 2: the Trump administration want. And therefore we fast forward, and
Speaker 2: the White House has now announced the immediate freezing of
Speaker 2: more than a quarter of Harvard's federal research grants and contracts.
Speaker 1: And just to zoom out for one sec this is
Speaker 1: now becoming a common theme of the legal opposition to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration in this second term, of trying to
Speaker 1: examine what is and is outside of the scope of
Speaker 1: presidential power. I mean, there's a group of small businesses
Speaker 1: in the Marriaka taking the administrations to court this week over tariff,
Speaker 1: saying it is exceeding the powers usually given to a president.
Speaker 1: So it's interesting that this isn't just in this area,
Speaker 1: it's across a lot of different areas. So the administration
Speaker 1: comes out and freezes a quarter of Harvard's federal research grants.
Speaker 1: What's been the response to Harvard taking that stand.
Speaker 2: Look, it's been fairly mixed, and I don't think that
Speaker 2: that would surprise anyone. On the one hand, there are
Speaker 2: current and former students who are backing Harvard's moves, suggesting
Speaker 2: that this is upholding the integrity of the institution. One
Speaker 2: of those former students you might be familiar with is
Speaker 2: one Barack Obama.
Speaker 1: I've heard of him.
Speaker 3: He's, you know, a familiar name.
Speaker 2: He attended Harvard, and he took to social media to
Speaker 2: praise the decision. He said, it's set an example for
Speaker 2: other higher ed institutions to reject an unlawful and handhanded
Speaker 2: attempt to stifle academic freedom while taking concrete steps to
Speaker 2: make sure all students at Harvard can bear fit from
Speaker 2: an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate, and mutual respect.
Speaker 2: And that precedent point is really important here, because, as
Speaker 2: we've briefly inferred, Harvard is not the only school that
Speaker 2: is experiencing this sort of like negotiation with the Trump administration.
Speaker 2: I mentioned earlier that Columbia is another such school that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump has in his sights. They are currently in
Speaker 2: negotiations with the Trump administration, and what we understand is
Speaker 2: that they have agreed to a number of the demands
Speaker 2: made by the administration, but here we have Harvard, at
Speaker 2: least to the public, being the first school to actively
Speaker 2: reject the demands made. And so what precedent this sets
Speaker 2: for other schools across the country who are also looking
Speaker 2: at having their funding frozen. It is really interesting.
Speaker 1: Is there more that President Trump can continue to kind
Speaker 1: of threaten threaten Harvard with? Yeah?
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a good question, because Donald Trump is
Speaker 2: certainly doubling down. He is now talking about whether or
Speaker 2: not Harvard should lose its tax exempt status, and he
Speaker 2: is suggesting that perhaps Harvard needs to be taxed as
Speaker 2: a political entity. He says, and I'm quoting here if
Speaker 2: it keeps pushing political ideological and terrorist inspired supporting sickness.
Speaker 2: And so, just to be clear that if the tax
Speaker 2: exemption status of Harvard were to change, which would be
Speaker 2: highly significant, we could again see Harvard losing billions and
Speaker 2: billions of dollars under this move. But there hasn't been
Speaker 2: any confirmation from the administration beyond that truth social post
Speaker 2: that the Trump administration is actually thinking about doing this.
Speaker 1: Right now, perhaps I'll just break that down a little
Speaker 1: bit more so, at the moment, Harvard would be taxed
Speaker 1: zero dollars for any of its income because it's classified
Speaker 1: as an education institution, and that's essentially a saving it
Speaker 1: makes because it doesn't pay money to the tax office.
Speaker 1: A political entity would be taxed a higher amount than zero.
Speaker 1: And Trump is basically saying that, you know, you could
Speaker 1: wake up tomorrow morning, Harvard, and you could have a
Speaker 1: tax bill that could potentially be in the hundreds of millions.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay, so that's a pretty serious next step. Where do
Speaker 1: you see this all going, what happens next? And could
Speaker 1: Harvard actually even appeal decisions against it?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Well, again, I think it does need to be restated
Speaker 2: that this is a fairly unprecedented situation, both for Harvard
Speaker 2: and for the administration. There's not really anything that either
Speaker 2: of them can point to in terms of next steps
Speaker 2: that are clearly set out. So one option is that, yes,
Speaker 2: Harvard could challenge this in court. They could argue that
Speaker 2: there has been government overreach and that the demands violate
Speaker 2: principles of academic freedom. Another alternative is that they could
Speaker 2: go back to the negotiating table exactly, and that they
Speaker 2: could settle on a compromise with the administration, though at
Speaker 2: this point that does seem less likely. But you know,
Speaker 2: we have no idea what's happening behind closed doors. But
Speaker 2: in the meantime, the existential threat that Harvard has to
Speaker 2: deal with is that it now has this huge funding
Speaker 2: gap that has almost entirely emerged overnight.
Speaker 3: And so I was reading that there have.
Speaker 2: Been a number of stop work orders made to certain
Speaker 2: faculties undergoing research, that their research grants have just been
Speaker 2: taken and therefore they cannot continue to invest in that research.
Speaker 1: So don't come to work today because we don't have
Speaker 1: the money to pay you right now.
Speaker 2: Correct, And so I suspect we'll see a bit more
Speaker 2: of that over the coming weeks and months. But this
Speaker 2: story is still developing, and whether or not either party
Speaker 2: negotiates compromises, we really don't know at this point.
Speaker 1: It's a really interesting stories, Szara, that, as we've said
Speaker 1: a couple of times now, doesn't have a historical example
Speaker 1: for us to go and look at and examine what
Speaker 1: could happen next. So we're going to have to keep
Speaker 1: a really close eye on this one. And thank you
Speaker 1: for listening to this episode of The Daily Oz. We'll
Speaker 1: be back in the afternoon with our afternoon headlines. If
Speaker 1: you enjoyed this episode, Flick it to a friend means
Speaker 1: the world to us. We'll speak to you later. My
Speaker 1: name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda Bunjelung
Speaker 1: Kalkadoon woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
Speaker 1: this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
Speaker 1: people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate
Speaker 1: island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
Speaker 1: peoples of these countries, both past and present.