Opinion: For True Intellectual Freedom, Colleges Must Sever Ties with Federal Funding

July 08, 2025

The unexpected reductions in federal research funding for institutions like Harvard, Columbia, and others under the Trump administration have understandably caused concern. However, reverting to the state of affairs before Trump would not ensure academic liberty, contrary to what Harvard and numerous scholars advocate.

Why not? Because the administration’s moves represent nothing but a sinister intensification of the assault on intellectual liberty that comes with accepting federal funds. They are equally detrimental, and both should be abolished.

Begin with the Trump administration. Ostensibly aiming to address the genuine issue of anti-Semitism on campuses—a concern coming from a president who dines with antisemites — The administration is insisting on intellectual property rights. control across Harvard’s faculty and student population.

Harvard needs to undergo an audit focusing on "the diversity of viewpoints among its students, faculty, staff, and leaders." Certain divisions like the Divinity School and Medical School will be closely examined to determine whether they show signs of being ideologically dominated. Additionally, initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) have to cease operations. The institution is barred from enrolling international students who are deemed "adversarial to the core American values and principles outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence" as defined by the government. (It presumably includes those supporting events such as Jan. 6.) day of love — are exempt.)

Harvard is correct to resist all of this. It is justified in doing so. declare No government should have the authority to decide what subjects private universities can instruct, who they can accept and employ, and what fields of study and research they can explore.

A private institution such as Harvard might opt to disregard the administration’s requirements; however, this would mean losing federal research funds, thereby placing it at a significant disadvantage compared to institutions still receiving substantial government support when attracting students, professors, and donors.

If Harvard and other private institutions genuinely aspire to achieve independence, then they ought to advocate for the complete phasing out of federal research financing.

Harvard ought to contend that because every instance of federal financial support includes certain governmental stipulations, this undermines intellectual liberty. However, Harvard is requesting additional government financing while taking issue solely with the particular character of these conditions or how those constraints are presently being implemented.

For example, Harvard doesn’t confront the government about requiring stronger measures against anti-Semitism; instead, it merely expresses disappointment that the current administration appears reluctant "to collaborate with us in addressing anti-Semitism constructively." When administrations adopt ideological objectives they support—such as numerous diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs—Harvard raises no objections. that require allow grant applicants to submit "diversity plans"; it merely takes issue when it conflicts with the government’s ideological objectives.

However, universities can’t evade the reality that federal grants inherently favor particular concepts over others. By doing this, the government chooses which scholarly pursuits succeed and which fail amongst individual citizens, directly contradicting the principle of academic liberty.

How did Harvard come into possession of the billions of dollars that the Trump administration currently intends to cut off? Each year, federal employees working for organizations like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Endowment for the Humanities review countless grant proposals and determine which private researchers will be granted federal funding and which won’t.

In even the most favorable situation, where federal officials act with due diligence, this approach fosters greater uniformity across academia. These officials usually rely on acknowledged authorities in the discipline, implying that well-established theories and methods have a higher chance of securing government backing. Consequently, this makes it challenging for alternative approaches or ideas to gain traction. intellectual minorities and innovators To compete. This unfolds throughout the entire university, which is highly motivated to recruit researchers who are likely to secure federal grants.

In more extreme cases, bureaucrats aggressively push their own ideological goals, consciously favoring certain perspectives while punishing others. This has been a significant factor in how Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives rapidly spread across universities. Similarly, the Trump administration openly asserts its authority to carry out such actions. Notably, as mentioned recently, harangue The administration claims it is penalizing Harvard due to blatantly political motives, such as "Harvard employed unsuccessful Mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot, possibly the worst leaders of significant American cities in our nation's history."

The concept of intellectual freedom asserts that every person has the liberty to form their own opinions, voice them regarding any topic, and allocate resources—financially or otherwise—to causes they personally endorse. Any action by the state that compels citizens to fund initiatives or perspectives through taxation infringes upon these rights. Such practices epitomize an unfair imposition present in governmental funding schemes. Institutions such as Harvard must confront and highlight this issue openly.

Rather than promoting true intellectual freedom, they advocate for "academic freedom," which essentially represents its antithesis. This concept claims the prerogative of institutions and educators to impart knowledge, conduct research, and express ideas without restriction—and all with public funding.

Trump's actions merely substitute "academic freedom" with an even more oppressive version of the same inequity: the authority shifts from colleges and educators to the executive branch, allowing them to determine which ideologies taxpayers must support financially.

The dangers facing Harvard and Columbia ought to serve as an awakening for both private educational institutions and those concerned with academic liberty. Instead of rallying behind either the Trump administration’s policies or calling for a reinstatement of conditions prior to his tenure, the appropriate course of action would be to progressively and equitably eliminate all federal grants and subsidies.

Return private universities to their original status as truly independent institutions. Allow every person to personally choose which universities they wish to attend and support financially.

Onkar Ghate, who holds a Ph.D. in philosophy, serves as a senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and has contributed to a recently published book titled " The First Amendment: Essays on the Necessity of Intellectual Liberty Sam Weaver, holding a Master of Arts degree in liberal arts, serves as an associate fellow at ARI and focuses his writing on topics related to education and intellectual freedom.

To stay updated with the newest information on news, weather, sports, and live videos, visit The Hill.