In the wake of ongoing negotiations between Harvard University and the Trump administration, professors are taking a stand to safeguard their academic freedoms against what they perceive as undue government influence.
As federal funding cuts loom—totaling an alarming $2.8 billion—faculty members have signaled their readiness to resist any agreements that may compromise the university’s independence.
Already, members of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) at Harvard have initiated legal challenges against the administration and organized rallies and petitions to express their concerns about the negotiations.
“The independence of the university is vital to everything we do,” declared classics professor Richard Thomas, an at-large member of Harvard’s AAUP chapter.
The university’s approach to negotiations has raised significant alarm among faculty members. While President Donald Trump has suggested that Harvard is “coming back to the table” to settle a prolonged disagreement, the administration has refrained from public commentary.
AAUP members have expressed frustration over being excluded from discussions with the White House.
“Harvard’s faculty cannot support any deal made without their input,” affirmed AAUP president Kirsten Weld.
A history professor, Weld emphasized that the university should never capitulate to government pressures, arguing that private institutions should not conform to federal demands that threaten academic integrity.
According to Weld, the university has already crossed a critical line by engaging in negotiations that compromise its mission.
“The federal government has put a gun to the head of the university and is demanding an ever-shifting set of changes, some of which are baldly illegal,” she stated.
Since a 1980 Supreme Court ruling categorized professors at private institutions as managerial employees, Harvard faculty do not possess the right to collective bargaining under federal law.
Established in 2024, Harvard’s AAUP operates without legal mandates requiring faculty representation in decisions impacting their working conditions.
Thus, the most viable avenue for collective action appears to be through litigation, according to AAUP members.
In April, Harvard’s President Alan Garber received commendation from academic circles nationwide for resisting a series of federal demands that sought to increase the Trump administration’s control over university policies, including hiring, admissions, and curriculum content.
However, given the heavy financial penalties imposed by the administration, Garber may find himself in a position where concessions are necessary to secure federal funds.
The Trump administration has already enacted significant budget cuts, coupled with restrictions barring international students from studying at Harvard.
Vincent Brown, an at-large member of Harvard’s AAUP chapter, emphasized that any formal announcement of a deal would prompt urgent action from faculty members.
AAUP leadership would convene an emergency meeting to determine potential responses to any deal with the White House.
While a strike is a possibility, Brown acknowledges that the summer break complicates organizing efforts.
“There’s a keen desire to maintain our ability to teach our students, conduct our research, and run our university without government interference,” Brown noted.
National AAUP president Todd Wolfson affirmed strong support for faculty’s right to take collective action against perceived threats.
“I one hundred percent support faculty taking collective action to respond to what they think are fundamental threats to Harvard, to their own work, or to higher education at large—period, end of sentence,” Wolfson remarked.
Support for faculty-led opposition is echoed by Crimson Courage, an alumni group advocating for academic independence in light of the administration’s actions.
Evelyn Kim, a Harvard alumna, voiced solid backing for the professors, stating they should conduct research free from governmental restrictions.
Harvard’s AAUP has expressed indignation at their lack of involvement in negotiations, hearing details primarily through media reports rather than from the university itself.
Wolfson raised concerns over the exclusion of faculty and students in discussions impacting university governance.
“Top Harvard officials are setting an alarming precedent by not including faculty and students in negotiations over how the university operates,” he said.
A recent Harvard Crimson faculty survey underscores the prevalent sentiment among professors; 71 percent of respondents oppose negotiating university policies with the Trump administration.
Moreover, a striking 98 percent support Harvard’s legal battle against the freezing of federal funds.
Brown highlighted the faculty’s unified stance, asserting that a majority do not wish to pursue agreements they deem likely to be disregarded by the Trump administration.
“We’re starting from that position of plurality and then figuring out what we’re going to do next,” he concluded.
image source from：bostonglobe
