In one defiant Patrick Henry-esque statement, Harvard University President Alan Garber encapsulated the divide between what private money and ownership can do and what public taxpayer dollars should do ― even though that was not his intention.
“The University will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights,” he defiantly wrote in response to the Trump administration’s threat to withhold $900 million of federal funding unless Harvard dismantles its DEI program.
What Garber said can be translated thusly: “Give Harvard your money so we can continue to do whatever we want to with it without telling you what we are doing with your money whether you like it or not.”
Garber, like many liberals, conflates your public taxpayer money with any private money raised through donations or tuitions. To them, money from government is merely another source of fungible funds to which they are entitled and then spend however and whenever they want as part of their “freedom” of thought, education and research.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
A private university can raise money from any nongovernment source and do with it whatever it wants as long as it doesn’t inflict harm on anyone. Harvard can charge every student $100,000 in tuition and teach them about the terrific advantages of communism and atheism as long as there are zero public taxpayer dollars involved anywhere in their system, including federal student aid or research dollars.
The free market will decide if parents want to send their children to get a diploma with the vaunted “Harvard” name on it regardless. Harvard may be oversubscribed every year in admission applications — or it may die a quick death and cease operations just like any business that failed to satisfy market demand.
The moment any federal or state taxpayer dollar finds its way into the Harvard bank account, Harvard loses all pretentions of Thomas Jeffersonian “independence.” It becomes subject to the whims of the majority of representatives elected to Congress and state legislatures like any other institution tethered to federal or state tax money.
It is time to “reprivatize” the private sector, as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is fond of saying. Build a firm firewall between all things public and all things private and see where that takes America in the 21st century.
Harvard could still say and do whatever they wish. They just can’t do it with public money.
Universities implemented DEI programs nationwide under the Biden administration without any prior public hearing or statement. The constitutionality of establishing hiring and admissions policies based solely on race crashed headfirst into the history of antidiscrimination laws and Supreme Court decisions right and left.
When there was a change at the White House, DEI programs were prime targets for repeal. If Harvard wants to use federal funding without any restrictions again, they should work to get a left-wing president and Congress elected who will throw money to them like a railroad boilerman shoveling coal into the engine without any question or oversight.
Garber may have done the United States an invaluable service. Every other private university can follow suit and create a universe of for-profit private universities tailored to specific niches in the student market. If parents want to send their kids to Harvard and other universities because they have DEI policies firmly in place, they can pay the full tuition and do so.
Each legislature would have to decide what to do with their publicly funded state university system. Liberal blue states such as California and New York could demand DEI policies stay in place at all public universities, and then parents would have to decide if they wanted to send their children to UCLA or SUNY (State University of New York) for their higher education supported by state taxpayer funds.
States such as Texas, Florida and North Carolina could decide, as they have already done, to do away with DEI in public universities and focus on the core elements of higher education competency such as math, science, physics, computer science and the liberal arts. Parents would have the choice to send their kids to non-DEI public schools supported by state taxpayer funds.
Higher education doesn’t have to be the same for all. A person can buy a coffee at Starbucks with innumerable variations ― why shouldn’t they be able to “buy” higher education with innumerable variations as well?
Families should have the choice about where to send their children by allowing private universities and state-supported universities the freedom to segment their educational offerings — and see where the market takes them and the American university and college system.
