On Wednesday, the White House defended its decision to halt Harvard University’s over$ 2 billion in federal funding, citing” common sense” and suggesting that other Ivy League institutions might face the same kind of attention.
Karoline Leavitt, the media director for the White Housesaid the move came after Harvard failed to comply with a list of demands from the Trump administration, including changes to admissions policies and efforts to combat antisemitism.
According to Lake, the government’s position on this is based on common sense, which is the fundamental principle that Israeli American students, or students of any belief, shouldn’t be subjected to unjustly harassing and targeted on our country’s university campuses.
Leavitt, who was interviewed by Fox News ‘ Peter Doocy about why Ivy League schools get so much funding from the government, called it” a very good question” and claimed President Trump has discussed the subject in discussions with Harvard, Columbia, and other prestigious institutions.
She further claimed that federal funding was enabling “egregious improper behaviour,” accusing universities of being antisemitic and being indoctrinated.
She said,” We have the racism work force, which the president promised and delivered on.” Many Americans are unsure as to why their tax dollars are being spent on institutions that permit such actions.
Leavitt emphasized that the government’s stance was “rooted in popular sense,” even though she did not specify which another Ivy League schools would be the next target.
Harvard rejects needs and raises legal concerns.
Harvard University responded by rejecting the administration’s proposed arrangement, calling it constitutional and outside the scope of Title VI’s power.
According to President Alan M. Garber, the terms would impose far-reaching restrictions on campus expression and render all diversity, equity, and inclusion ( DEI ) initiatives unconstitutional.
Garber said,” It makes clear that the purpose is not to function with us to address hatred in a collaborative and creative way.” Through our legal counsel, we have informed the leadership that we won’t take their proposed deal.
