Democracy is at stake in Harvard’s lawsuit against Trump

Last week for more than two hours inside a Boston courtroom a federal judge heard oral arguments in Harvard University s lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump s restrictions on its federal research funding Over billion is at stake in the lawsuit along with vital lines of scientific inquiry research jobs and most of of all the question of a private institution s autonomy The arguments heard were for summary judgment which means both sides agree on the facts but disagree on how the law applies to those facts Neither Harvard nor the Trump administration dispute that the president made certain unprecedented written demands to the university which were accompanied by unprecedented threats if they refused to comply Harvard refused to comply and sued instead If the high court s conservative majority further empowers Trump s edicts under their misguided unitary executive theory which holds that the president has absolute control over the entire executive branch it s feasible our -year history of ideological freedoms will come to an end The party that loses summary judgment will appeal and the final disposition will likely eventually come from the Supreme Court Such a ruling will have lasting consequences If the high court s conservative majority further empowers Trump s edicts under their misguided unitary executive theory which holds that the president has absolute control over the entire executive branch it s realizable our -year history of ideological freedoms will come to an end The battle has been brewing since April when the Trump administration ostensibly seeking to reduce campus antisemitism following widespread protests over Gaza threatened to withhold billions in federal funding from Harvard place a lien on university assets and put academic departments in receivership unless Harvard agreed to a long list of demands Exclusively promote faculty committed to Harvard s mission and Trump s viewpoints Submit the university to a Trump administration review of viewpoint diversity Scrutinize any programs and departments that might in Trump s judgment fuel antisemitic harassment Submit all faculty to outside review for alleged plagiarism Submit to a comprehensive hiring and review audit conducted by the federal cabinet Implement a comprehensive mask ban and suspend anyone who wears a mask Review to the federal regime on any faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students Screen aspirant applicants to reject those with viewpoints hostile the policies of the Trump administration and Israel Establish outside review for Harvard programs that reflect ideological capture meaning programs where classroom messaging does not reflect Trump-supportive dogma Diminish the influence of its own professors and faculty over the university Establish merit based hiring and admissions policies that please the Trump administration Related We can still save coaching and that s the key to saving democracy Oral arguments were both testy and basic Michael Velchik the lone Justice Department lawyer arguing the motion asserted that the administration has the power to decide where it will spend taxpayer money and that the cabinet does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction According to Velchik when Harvard refused to go along with Trump s demands he was free to terminate any and all contracts with the university In other words the federal ruling body can terminate or withhold funds under a contract for any reason at all even if that reason violates free speech the right of free association or any other rights protected under First Amendment Steven Lehotsky Harvard s counsel countered that Trump s attempts to control Harvard including telling the university what it can teach and how it can teach it represents Trump s blatant and unrepentant violation of the First Amendment The Supreme Court has long held viewpoint discrimination to be such a serious violation of the First Amendment that it is treated as presumptively unconstitutional Lehotsky argued plainly that It s the constitutional third rail or it should be for the regime to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination Trump has been consistent in his belief that he can punish speech and political conduct he doesn t like notwithstanding clear and unequivocal legal precedent to the contrary He has applied the same strong-arm tactics to boardrooms and corporations national media outlets law firms and majority of in the past few days comedians If the Roberts court continues to enable him Trump could extend the same reasoning to imprison or otherwise punish anyone who criticizes him following the same authoritarian playbook that produced Nazi Germany Viktor Orban s Hungary and Vladimir Putin s Russia Want more sharp takes on politics Sign up for our free newsletter Standing Room Only written by Amanda Marcotte now also a weekly show on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts Even if Harvard allowed the expression of antisemitic views on campus despite a strong Jewish presence among Harvard faculty there still has to be certain nexus or particular connection between what the authorities is trying to fix antisemitism and the methods it uses to fix it Judge Allison D Burroughs went to the heart of this concept when she sought Trump s counsel to explain the relationship between antisemitism and cutting off unrelated cancer research funding noting that the president is not taking away grants from labs that have been antisemitic An amicus brief filed in the development by Jewish scholars also points out that Trump routinely uses antisemitism as a ruse to attack freedom of speech freedom of thought and freedom of association As noted in their brief multiple Jewish scholars reject the notion that being Jewish requires adherence to a specific conception of Zionism or aid for the Israeli ruling body or its policies and practices Judge Burroughs noted that if Trump or any federal administration could punish a university without due process only because they don t like its politics message or the substance of its curriculum the constitutional consequences would be staggering We need your help to stay independent Subscribe in the modern day to backing Salon s progressive journalism At the heart of the development are the preponderance fundamental questions one can ask about the relationship between the regime and the governed Under the First Amendment can the federal establishment control what is taught in the classroom and what is disclosed on university campuses Can the federal administration withhold federal funds if it doesn t like what it hears or doesn t agree with the viewpoints expressed If the Supreme Court eventually answers no then our Constitution stands Trump will join over two centuries of presidents who have had to grin and bear it when students called them ugly names and protested their policies And who knows Trump could even learn why the framers made free speech and association the very first amendment to the Constitution But if the answer is yes the First Amendment under the watch of the Roberts court will fall and then there will be little to no reason to believe any other constitutional protection will stand Trump will forcibly insert his right-wing ideology onto campuses in boardrooms and throughout legacy media nationwide Such a decision would be catastrophic serving only a madman s lust for power and revenge and causing America s democracy to cease to exist Read more about this topic The ugly truth of Trump s America First agenda J D Vance exposed the truth about Trump s war on foreign students hint it s not about antisemitism Harvard fights back against Trump Institutional resistance at last rises up and sets a new model The post Democracy is at stake in Harvard s lawsuit against Trump appeared first on Salon com