After years of festering antisemitism and utilizing policies thatmanyAmericans deemed unconstitutionally discriminatory, today, higher education is at a crossroads: Shape up or lose billions.
The federal government is taking steps to condition federal funds on submitting to the administrations interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes. Its most recent target, Harvard University, says this is an attack on theinstitutional independenceof higher education.
What did they expect? This is just what happens when,for decades, you make federal funding the cornerstone of higher educations research and educational initiatives. Those seeking to avoid the federal bully-pulpit should learn from schools like Hillsdale College, Grove City, and Christendom College in Virginia, all of whom refuse to take government funds and thus preserve their independence.
The Trump administration has been scrutinizing some of Americas most prestigious academic institutions. First, theycanceled$400 million in federal grants to Columbia University and gave the school a list of demandsto restore funding, including a ban on masks, follow-through on disciplinary proceedings for those who participated in the spring 2024 antisemitic riots, and a crackdown on antisemitism on campus. Columbiacapitulatedto the administrations demands and received their funding back.
Now the administration has pulled Harvard Universitys access to federal funding for numerous Title VI violations. The administration provided Harvard with alist of demands, including an order to adopt “merit-based” hiring and admissions policies, to reform programs with an egregious record of antisemitism, and to discontinue DEI programs. Harvardrefusedto capitulate to the administrations demands, arguing that it exceeds their statutory power under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and claiming: “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” The administration responded byfreezing$2.3 billion in federal funds.
Unfortunately for Harvard, the federal government likelycancondition federal funding for grants and students based on what is taught, who is admitted, and who is hired. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, universities that accept federal funding have beensubject to Title VI, which explicitlyprohibitsuniversities from discriminating against applicants for admission, current students, or those seeking employment based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Universities that accept federal monies are also subject toTitle IX(which bans sex-based discrimination), theAge Discrimination Actof 1975, and theAmericans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
The judiciary isnt likely to side with Harvard here, as precedent is against them. In 1984, the Supreme Court held inGrove City College v. Bellthat schools that accept federal funds are subject to Title IXs regulations, even private universities. In fact, the Fifth Circuit relied on the Grove City decision to hold that universities that accept federal grantsmust complywith federal anti-discrimination regulations.
Translation: The Trump administration is well within its rights to condition access to federal money on compliance with its interpretation of federal antidiscrimination law.
Given that the Department of Education gives loans to6.3 million studentsevery year and$30 billionin federal grants for research to universities every year, the administrations broad power over federal funding gives them an immeasurable power over institutions of higher education – making expansive federal control over hiring, firing, curriculum, and admissions logically inevitable. Indeed, anti-discrimination provisions are so potent that, afterStudents for Fair Admissionended affirmative action in 2023, universitiesquickly endedrace-based admissions policies to continue receiving federal funds. Our universities have chosen to surrender their independence for access to federal funds.
Universities concerned about losing their independence should take a page from Hillsdale College. Hillsdale has not taken a dime from the governmentsince 1975because it recognized that an administration hostile to its values and curriculum could use federal anti-discrimination law to subvert academic freedom and limit its independence. One would think this has made Hillsdale unaffordable, undesirable, and academically lax. Yet this is not the case. Despite the national average for tuition being$43,505, Hillsdale has managed to keep its tuition below average at$31,780. Hillsdale is also clearly attractive to applicants, as it only has a21%acceptance rate. Finally, it is known for its academic rigor; US News ranked it as#50in national liberal arts colleges.
Hillsdale itself hascredited its successto its decision to retain independence by rejecting government funding.
Surely elite universities like Harvard, which has a$53 billionendowment and tons of wealthy alumni, can stave off the loss of federal funding, like Hillsdale has, to maintain their independence. The Trump administrations actions should wake universities up to a cold, sobering reality: If you want to run your school free from federal oversight,sooner or later, you have to say no to federal funds.
Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova’s McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has appeared in Fox News, the New York Post, and the Daily Wire.