Harvard Faculty Union Threatens Resistance to Any Deal with Trump Administration

Faculty at Harvard University are warning that they will "strongly oppose" any agreement the university might strike with the Trump administration regarding ongoing threats to federal funding and alleged civil rights violations. The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), representing more than 300 faculty members, issued the warning amid secretive negotiations between Harvard leadership and federal officials.

In recent months, the Trump administration has escalated efforts to discipline elite universities, accusing Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students and violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education has threatened to withhold all federal funding from the university, a move that could disrupt billions of dollars in research and student aid. While Harvard has filed suit to block the funding cuts, concerns have emerged that university leaders may quietly negotiate a settlement to avoid further political retaliation.

Harvard faculty say they were not consulted about the negotiations and reject any deal that would compromise academic freedom, institutional autonomy, or faculty governance. Kirsten Weld, president of the AAUP chapter, told the Boston Globe that “the red line of academic freedom… has already been crossed” if administrators are making decisions without full faculty participation. Professor of Classics Richard Thomas emphasized that any arrangement that gives the government influence over curriculum, hiring, or research is unacceptable, stating, “I expect that the AAUP and the faculty will react very strongly against any sort of deal.”

The AAUP’s position is backed by a recent survey reported by The Harvard Crimson, showing that 71 percent of responding faculty oppose any agreement with the Trump administration, while 98 percent support Harvard’s legal efforts to block the federal funding freeze. The faculty response reflects not only opposition to political interference, but also frustration with what they see as a lack of transparency from Harvard’s top leadership.

The university's conflict with the federal government began after the administration accused Harvard and other elite schools of fostering environments hostile to Jewish students, citing demonstrations and social media posts in the wake of the Israel-Gaza conflict. Critics argue that these investigations are politically motivated and designed to suppress speech critical of U.S. foreign policy or Israeli actions. By threatening to cut off Title IV funds and research grants, the administration is leveraging unprecedented financial pressure on higher education institutions.

Harvard’s AAUP chapter, like others formed in recent years, lacks formal collective bargaining rights under U.S. labor law. But its members are prepared to organize using petitions, public pressure, and other means of faculty protest. As universities become central targets in broader culture wars, the line between political influence and academic control continues to blur. Faculty organizers view this moment as a test case not only for Harvard’s values, but for the future of academic freedom across the country.

For the Higher Education Inquirer, which has long stood in support of labor rights and academic self-governance, this case highlights the growing need for faculty and student workers to assert their roles in shaping institutional responses to political coercion. Whether Harvard’s leadership will listen to its faculty remains to be seen. But the message from the AAUP is clear: any backroom deal with the federal government that sacrifices core academic principles will face fierce and public opposition.

Sources
The Boston Globe, July 6, 2025: “Harvard professor union will ‘strongly’ oppose any deal between school and Trump, members say”
The Harvard Crimson, July 2025: “Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump Administration, Survey Finds”
The Washington Post, April 21, 2025: “Harvard sues the Trump administration in escalating confrontation”
Politico, April 17, 2025: “The Ivy League resistance is just getting started”

Good ideas are stolen. Great ideas are buried. We uncover both. And we publish them.

Over the course of our tenure at the Higher Education Inquirer, we have discovered that the US political economy (including the higher education system that serves it) is in a state of dysfunction-that the situation is worsening--and that there is some resistance (and hope). 

This critical analysis is not merely a belief, but something that can be objectively measured, whether its child poverty, student loan debt, loss of good jobs and union busting, mental illness and suicide, social inequality, life expectancy, or global climate chaos. 

It can also be measured in protests, strikes, and progressive social change.  

It doesn't have to be this way, but lots of American time and energy is spent with greed and fear in mind, instead of improving quality of life and sustaining the planet. That's why the Higher Education Inquirer exists: not just to expose rampant corruption, but to provide viable, detailed, life-sustaining alternatives. 

We aim not just to educate, but to agitate and help organize. We are not ashamed to say that our list of guest authors and contributors reflects human diversity, equity, inclusion--and justice for students, workers, and activists--people who are often marginalized and silenced by the higher education establishment and the higher ed business.   

Unlike other sources, we believe in the power of the People.

If you have good ideas and great ideas for higher education, send them to us. If you have stories of challenges and resistance, send them. We'll publish them when others won't. If you fear retribution or ridicule, we'll publish those stories anonymously. And the good ideas (and great ideas) will get out.  

Related links:

Ahead of the Learned Herd: Why the Higher Education Inquirer Grows During the Endless College Meltdown

Higher Education, Technology, and A Growing Social Anxiety

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

The Serenity Prayer, Climate Collapse, and Genocide: A Deal with the Devil

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

The Serenity Prayer has comforted millions. In times of personal struggle, it can be a powerful call to surrender what lies beyond one’s control. But in moments of global crisis, when powerful institutions profit from destruction, the prayer can function less as a path to peace and more as a pact of passivity—a deal with the devil.

This danger becomes stark in the face of two intertwined realities: planetary climate collapse and the mass suffering of human populations through war and genocide. While glaciers melt and firestorms raze entire regions, and while families in Gaza are buried beneath rubble from precision airstrikes, too many well-meaning individuals offer only whispered prayers for acceptance. The language of “serenity” has become a spiritual sedative, numbing people to action in the face of unprecedented violence.

The horror in Gaza is not isolated. It is the latest chapter in a long history of calculated brutality. For more than nine months, Israeli forces have carried out one of the most intensive bombing campaigns of the century, reducing schools, hospitals, and apartment blocks to ash. Palestinians—already confined, stateless, and starving—are told to disappear quietly. And in the United States, many of the most powerful evangelical Christian institutions offer not protest, but prayer. They do not condemn the bombs. They bless them.

This theology of inaction extends to the climate crisis as well. Fires in Canada have darkened skies from New York to Kentucky. Rising seas threaten to erase Pacific island nations and entire Gulf communities. Extreme heat has shattered records from Delhi to Phoenix. The science is clear, and has been for decades. The cause is clear: the burning of fossil fuels for profit. And yet, rather than confront the systems responsible, many Americans—especially in religious communities—retreat into familiar verses, trusting in divine will while oil executives thank them for their silence.

This pattern is old. During the genocide of Native Americans, Christian settlers invoked scripture to justify massacres. Indigenous nations were labeled “heathens” standing in the way of Manifest Destiny. Boarding schools were built to “kill the Indian, save the man.” Entire civilizations were wiped out in the name of order, law, and even God. Churches, rather than stand with the oppressed, often operated hand-in-hand with empire. They prayed not for justice, but for tranquility—after the land had been stolen and the people erased.

In the twentieth century, many Christian leaders remained silent during the Holocaust. In the Rwandan genocide, clergy sometimes aided the killers. Again and again, the lesson is clear: serenity without resistance is complicity.

And today, we see this same quiet complicity in American Christian higher education. At Liberty University—a billion-dollar religious empire—the Serenity Prayer might just as well hang above the boardroom. The institution thrives on a mixture of fundamentalist certainty, political power, and economic ambition. Its law school has become a breeding ground for conservative legal warriors who reinterpret justice through dominionist theology. Its Jesse Helms School of Government honors a segregationist legacy while preparing students for ideological battle. Climate science is downplayed. Militarism is sanctified. And genocide—whether in the name of security or salvation—is never named.

In such an environment, prayer becomes performance. It soothes the conscience while injustice metastasizes. It gives believers a moral loophole: if change is deemed impossible, no action is required. But change is not impossible. Resistance is not futile. And silence is not neutral.

We must reclaim the Serenity Prayer from the institutions that have weaponized it. Serenity cannot be the first response to atrocity. Courage must lead, especially when the victims are silenced. Wisdom must include historical memory—of the land theft that built America, of the smoke rising from Gaza, of the forests burning in Siberia and the Sahel. And acceptance must come only after struggle, not before it.

The future will not judge us for how often we prayed, but for what we did while praying. In an age of climate catastrophe and global injustice, serenity without struggle is not peace—it is surrender.

Sources:
Reinhold Niebuhr, The Serenity Prayer and its Contexts, Library of Congress
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), “Gaza Emergency Reports” (2023–2025)
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment Report (2023)
Human Rights Watch, “Israel: Apparent War Crimes in Gaza” (2024)
Samantha Power, "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide
Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything
Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt
Democracy Now!, “Witnessing the Gaza Bombardment”
Center for Environmental Justice, “Climate Apartheid” Report
Higher Education Inquirer, “Liberty University: A Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Powerhouse Under the Lens” (2025)

Joining two anti-Trump events this month (Bryan Alexander)

Over the past two weeks I carved out time to participate in two anti-Trump in-person events.  In this post I wanted to share some notes on the experiences, along with photos.

Last Thursday, after the regular Future Trends Forum session, my son Owain and I went to a local town hall led by our federal representative, Democrat Suhas Subramanyam. It took place in a community center and was very crowded, packed with people.  Before it began I didn’t hear much discussion, but did see some folks with anti-Trump and -Musk signs.  I found some seats for Owain and I and we each opened up a Google Doc on our phones to take notes.

Subramanyam took the stage and began with some brief remarks, starting with citing the dangers of DOGE. He mentioned working in the United States Digital Service during the Obama administration, the unit which DOGE took over as its institutional base. Subramanyam described why he voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government running and also spoke to the humanitarian and governmental problems of firing so many federal workers.

Then it was over to questions. Folks lined up before two (somewhat functional) microphones. They told personal stories: of being lifelong federal workers, or having family members in those positions, and now facing their work being undone or their jobs ruined. Some spoke of depending on federal programs (SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and fearing cuts to them.  Several had military experience, which won applause from the room. Above all was this seething sense that Trump was a brutal and extraordinary threat, that Democrats weren’t taking it seriously, and the question: what can we do to fight back? Subramanyam listened hard to each one and answered thoughtfully, respectfully, often pointing to resources or actions we could take.

Ever the extrovert, I joined the microphone line right away. I was going to ask about threats to higher education, but happily someone else beat me to it. The representative offered a positive response, praising the work of researchers and teachers, urging us to fight for educators.  So, standing in line, I came up with another question.  When my turn came I began by thanking the representative for actually doing a real town hall meeting, not a scripted thing. I compared this meeting favorably to Vermont’s town hall tradition, and mentioned Bernie Sanders as a comparable example of someone who also knows how to do a community meeting well, and the room erupted in applause.

So I asked about climate change, how we – academics and everyone – can do climate work in this situation. I noted how the crisis was worsening, and how Trump was going to make things even more difficult. I was impressed to have Subramanyam’s full attention while I spoke.  I was equally impressed that he replied by supporting my remarks and work, then called for more climate action in the face of Trump’s actions.

Nobody got a photo of me that I know of, so here’s a shot of the representative (on right) paying close attention to one resident (standing on left).

(A sign of climate in culture today: people applauded my question. After I left the mic, several folks reached out to me – literally – to thank me for raising the topic.)

Returning to that question of what can be done to oppose Trump, Subramanyam and questioners listed these actions:

• • Legal action: filing lawsuits and supporting other people’s.  Getting Democratic politicians to do the same.
  • Congressional investigations into Trump: the Congressman pointed out that these can expose administrative malfeasance and build resistance.
  • Flat out resistance to Trump actions. Subramanyam argued that when people refuse to comply, the admin sometimes backs down, saying they made a mistake.
  • Doing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get the feds to cough up documentation. They can slow-walk queries or outright refuse, of course, but FOIA can produce results.
  • Phone calls to people in red counties. (I think this was aimed at calling GOP officials, but am not sure.
  • People telling stories of Trump harms in whatever setting works. At one point Subramanyam said if the GOP wants to “flood the zone” with bogus content we should flood it right back with true, personal stories.

There were no calls for property damage or violence against people. Nor did anybody used the phrase “civil disobedience” or called for such actions.

The hour grew late and people started to drift out.  Owain and I had to get home and we filed out as well.

Two weeks ago I joined a different event, a rally for science in Washington, DC.  It took place at the Lincoln Memorial.  Several thousand people were there, all ages, races, genders. The mood was upbeat despite the chill and strong winds.

A podium rested on the steps and from there spoke quite the program of luminaries, including Bill Nye (I missed him), Francis Collins (just stepped down as NIH head), Atul Gawande (excellent medical writer, also surgeon), Phil Plait (astronomer, science communicator), and some other people I didn’t recognize. There was some singing, too.

Dr. Gawande

The overall theme was that Trump’s science cuts were awful.  Speakers hit on points under this header, such as that RFK was a dangerous idiot and that research reductions meant that human lives would be harmed and lost.  Diversity along race and gender lines was vital.  All kinds of science were mentioned, with medicine and public health leading the charge.

The consensus was on returning science funding to what it was under Biden, not in expanding it. There were no claims for adding scientific overviews to policy – it was a defensive, not offensive program.

There were plenty of signs.  Some had a fine satirical edge:

Off to one side – well, down along the reflecting pool – there was an Extinction Rebellion performance or group appearance, but I didn’t get to see if they staged anything besides looking awesome and grim.

During the time I was there no police appeared. There weren’t any counterprotesters.

Eventually I had to start the trip home.  As I walked along the reflecting pool towards the Metro station I heard speakers continuing and the roar of the appreciative crowd.

---

What can we take away from these two events?

There is a fierce opposition to Trump and it occurs across various sectors of society, from scientists to everyday folks (with some overlap!). Pro-Trump people didn’t appear, so I didn’t see arguments or worse between groups. I don’t know if this means that the president’s supporters are just confident or prefer to work online.

The Democratic party is not in a leadership role.  Outrage precedes and exceeds its actions so far.  The town hall liked Subramanyam, but it was clear they were bringing demands to him, and that he did not back the party leadership.

Both events had a strong positive feel, even though each was based on outrage. There was a sense of energy to be exerted, action to be had.

Many people visibly recorded each event, primarily through phones. I didn’t see anyone object to this.  (I tried to get people’s permission to photograph them, when they were clearly identifiable individuals.)

My feel is that climate interest is waning among people who oppose Trump.  They aren’t denying it and will support those who speak and act on it, but it’s no longer a leading concern.

Yet these were just two events, a very small sample size, and both in roughly the same geographic area, about 50 miles apart.  We can’t seriously generalize from this evidence, but hopefully it’s a useful snapshot and sample.

Personally, I found both to be rewarding and supportive. It was good to be with people who were similarly outraged and willing to be so in public.

American readers, are you seeing anything similar in your areas?  Non-Americans, what do you think of this glimpse?

[Editors note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

The "Education Not Agitation" Act Seeks Crackdown on Campus Protestors

Republican Greg Murphy (MD) has introduced legislation in Congress to crack down on American college campuses, and to support the restriction of freedom of assembly and other Constitutional rights. The legislation is titled the Education Not Agitation Act.  

This legislation disqualifies individuals who are convicted of certain criminal offenses from receiving education related tax benefits including the American Opportunity Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, and the deduction on student loan interest. 

Specifically, if an individual is convicted of unlawful assembly, rioting, trespassing, vandalism, battery, or battery on a law enforcement officer while conducting a protest at an institute of higher education, they will be disqualified from receiving these tax benefits. 

Unlawful assembly is the legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. Trespassing is knowingly entering another owners' property or land without permission. Vandalism is the intentional destruction or defacement of another person's property. These acts, however, are subject to the varying opinions of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and juries.

The threat of arrest and use of force, detention, school suspensions, deportations, and other police and administrative powers may be enough to prevent peaceful protests or reduce the power of the protestors. Some universities and state governments have already acted to reduce and restrict freedom of speech and assembly on campus.

Legislation like the Education Not Agitation Act further sanctions those who may have valid reasons for resistance on existential matters like war and peace, genocide, and catastrophic climate change. History (hopefully) will record that.  

Related links:

 
What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?  

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

How Would Trump's Plans for Mass Deportations Affect US Higher Education?

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Resistance has been an essential part of democracy. And the Higher Education Inquirer has reported on a number of nonviolent actions taken by college students and workers across the US. We have also recognized the brutal physical and economic violence that has been a part of US history and social structure and a major contributor to the ineffective counter-violence that has sometimes resulted. 

According to the Albert Einstein Institution, "far too often people struggling for democratic rights and justice are not aware of the full range of methods of nonviolent action. Wise strategy, attention to the dynamics of nonviolent struggle, and careful selection of methods can increase a group’s chances of success." 

Nonviolent strategies include three broad categories: (1) nonviolent protest and persuasion, (2) noncooperation (social, economic, and political), and (3) nonviolent intervention. 

A list of 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action is posted on the Brandeis University website. The list is based on Gene Sharp's Methods of Nonviolent Action (1973), but this document is not exhaustive.  Strategies and tactics may need to change with what works in these times: with new technology and greater understanding about how humans think and behave.

 

Historical Examples

Nonviolent protests for justice and democracy and against white supremacy occurred at Shaw University (1919), Fisk (1924-25), Howard (1925), and Hampton Institute (1925-27).  

In the early 1940s, James Farmer, a Howard Divinity School graduate, with students from the University of Chicago established the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), an interracial group focused on nonviolent direct action for civil rights. 

The 1960s were recognized for student activism, including the formation of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), at Shaw University. This organization, and people like Ella Baker, were an essential part of the civil rights movement. 

In the 1970s and 1980s, divestment campaigns were an important part of the campaign against South African apartheid. Protesting for divestment against private prisons has also occurred on US campuses.  

Most recently, there were a number of campus occupations to protest the destruction of Gaza and the mass killing of civilians. And protests about climate change have been visible on a number of campuses for years. In these cases, we can expect more serious conflict to occur if these issues are not sufficiently addressed. 

As always, we appreciate your comments and constructive criticism.  

Related links: 

Black Study, Black Struggle (Robin D.G. Kelley, Boston Review)

A People's History of Higher Education in the US? 

Student Activism 

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee

Modeling civil unrest in the United States: some historical cases (Bryan Alexander)

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

US Higher Education and the Intellectualization of White Supremacy

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

HurricaneTWOU.com: Digital Protest Exposes Syracuse, USC, Pepperdine, and University of North Carolina in 2U edX Edugrift

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

Rutgers University Workers Waging Historic Strike For Economic Justice (Hank Kalet)

University of California Academic Workers Strike For Economic Justice (November 14 to December 23, 2022)

Terri Givens and “Radical Empathy: Finding a Path to Bridge Racial Divides”

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

DEBT STRIKE! (Debt Collective)