By: Fern Sidman

Harvard University finds itself at the epicenter of a volatile national conflict between academic autonomy and federal authority, as a new survey of more than 1,400 faculty members reveals overwhelming opposition to proposed compliance with federal mandates tied to $3 billion in frozen research funding. As The Algemeiner reported on Friday, the results of the Harvard Crimson survey illustrate not only deep faculty resistance to federal oversight, but a broader unwillingness to address the campus antisemitism crisis that has intensified since Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

The poll, conducted between April 23 and May 12, reveals that 71% of Harvard’s arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating any settlement with the Trump administration, which has conditioned the restoration of funds on sweeping changes—ranging from merit-based admissions and greater viewpoint diversity to robust sanctions against unauthorized campus protests. Particularly notable, according to the report in The Algemeiner, is the ideological rigidity of faculty attitudes: 64% “strongly disagree” with shuttering Harvard’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, while 70% oppose withdrawing recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).

The Algemeiner report highlighted that 73% of surveyed faculty also rejected disqualifying foreign applicants who hold views considered hostile to the values enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence—an indicator of how far Harvard’s academic culture has shifted from traditional civic frameworks in favor of an aggressively pluralistic ethos, even in the face of growing civil rights violations.

Perhaps most striking, The Algemeiner report emphasized, is that more than 98% of faculty respondents supported Harvard’s legal challenge against the White House and affirmed the university’s rejection of conditions tied to federal research funds. Among these terms were external audits of hiring practices and disciplinary measures for students engaged in disruptive, often antisemitic protests.

This collective resistance has triggered sharp criticism from Jewish advocacy organizations and legal experts who argue that the university’s refusal to confront the ideological roots of antisemitism on campus renders any institutional reform efforts hollow. Alyza Lewin, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Algemeiner that the poll results portend continued institutional failure to protect Jewish students.

“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin said. She pointed to what she described as “intellectualized antisemitism,” where Israel is treated as the “collective Jew” and subjected to uniquely hostile scrutiny that meets the criteria outlined in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

According to the information provided in The Algemeiner report, Lewin’s critique cuts to the core of the institutional malaise: faculty and administrators failing to identify demonization, double standards, and marginalization of Jews and Zionists as violations of anti-discrimination policy. “Faculty must recognize the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists…as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe,” she emphasized.

The poll’s publication coincides with mounting pressure from the Trump administration, which has made clear that Harvard must implement immediate reforms or risk long-term financial and reputational consequences. As The Algemeiner previously reported, on June 30, the administration issued Harvard a formal “notice of violation” of federal civil rights law, following a comprehensive investigation into the university’s response to numerous antisemitic incidents reported since the start of the 2023–2024 academic year.

The notice, issued by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, accused Harvard of systematically failing to protect its Jewish students from “a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse” that escalated following the Hamas-led atrocities in Israel. According to the information contained in The Algemeiner report, the letter warned that failure to make adequate institutional changes would result in the permanent withdrawal of federal financial resources.

“Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again,” the Task Force wrote in language that The Algemeiner described as both admonishing and ironic.

Further escalating the standoff, the Department of Education formally referred Harvard to its accrediting body, the New England Commission of Higher Education, on charges that the university’s failure to address antisemitic harassment may warrant the revocation of its accreditation. Such a move would not only jeopardize Harvard’s eligibility for federal funding but cast serious doubt on the quality of the education it provides.

“By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon, as quoted by The Algemeiner. “Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning.”

Meanwhile, behind closed doors, interim President Alan Garber is reportedly attempting to strike a compromise with the federal government that can satisfy both legal demands and the university’s entrenched left-wing power structures. According to The Algemeiner report and a June 26 Crimson report, Garber confirmed in a private phone call with donors that negotiations had resumed, though he declined to elaborate on what concessions Harvard might consider.

The challenge for Garber is formidable. As The Algemeiner report pointed out, he must navigate the irreconcilable pressures of an ideologically hardened faculty, a volatile student body increasingly animated by anti-Zionist activism, and a federal government that has declared antisemitism a civil rights crisis demanding urgent institutional accountability.

At its core, the battle over federal funding is a referendum on Harvard’s values. Is the university willing to comply with laws guaranteeing equal protection for Jewish students, or will it continue to defend ideological entrenchment masquerading as academic freedom?

The answers remain unclear. But as The Algemeiner report noted, what is certain is that the stakes—moral, legal, and financial—could not be higher. For Jewish students and for American higher education writ large, the question is no longer whether antisemitism can be tolerated on campus, but whether the institutions themselves can survive without reckoning with it.