By Kritika Agarwal
AAU has joined 27 other higher education organizations in submitting an amicus brief supporting Harvard University’s motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful freezes of its federal funding.
The case, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., was filed on April 21 and argues that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment as well as federal laws and regulations.
The organizations argued that the funding freezes are unlawful executive actions that violate the separation of powers and seek to punish Harvard for refusing to cede control of its governance and operations and for refusing to adhere to the administration’s preferred ideological alignment.
Their brief asserted that the administration’s actions are incompatible with the First Amendment, which guarantees universities the right to engage in open academic debate without government intrusion. “Institutional autonomy is rooted in the First Amendment and has been a critical source of the Nation’s success,” the organizations noted.
Finally, the brief argued that the consequences of the administration’s actions extend far beyond Harvard – they “jeopardize the foundation of a national research system that has made higher education in the United States the envy of the world.”
Drawing comparison to the Soviet Union’s suppression of scientific research in the name of ideology in the 1930s, the organizations noted: “The concern is that real, and the stakes are that high. This is why it is so important to remember and vigorously support the premise that – in this country – the remedy for viewpoints the government disfavors must be ‘more speech, not enforced silence.’”
Two dozen research universities, including Boston University; Brown University; California Institute of Technology; Dartmouth; Johns Hopkins University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Michigan State University; Princeton University; Rice University; Rutgers University; Stanford University; Tufts University; University of Maryland, College Park; University of Oregon; University of Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh; and Yale University also filed a joint amicus brief in Harvard’s support.
The universities’ brief focused on how funding cuts to Harvard will harm the entire research ecosystem. “Even schools that do not experience direct cuts will suffer,” their brief argued, adding: “Scientists work across institutions; grants issued to one university frequently support researchers from others. And cutting-edge research is often conducted via collaboration.” The brief continued: “The withdrawal of federal support at even one institution is thus a blow to the entire ecosystem and deters the long-term investment necessary for scientific and technological progress.”
Harvard also received support from 21 state attorneys general and 12,000 alumni. The attorneys general amicus brief pointed to economic activity generated by research universities and noted that “an across-the-board funding freeze like the one at issue here would result in massive downstream consequences.”
The alumni brief focused on how the administration’s actions would stifle free inquiry and academic freedom. “The Government’s end goal is to narrow our freedoms to learn, teach, think, and act, and to claim for itself the right to dictate who may enjoy those freedoms,” the alumni said in their brief.
A hearing to consider arguments for summary judgment is currently scheduled for July 21.
Kritika Agarwal is assistant vice president for communications at AAU.