Poll: Only 36% Of Democrats Are Proud To Be American
It is worth noting when significant portions of one party reject being proud to be American in the span of one decade, while another remains completely unaffected by the shift in sentiment.It is worth noting when significant portions of one party reject being proud to be American in the span of one decade, while another remains completely unaffected by the shift in sentiment.Exposed: Harvard's elite law journal accused of discriminating against white men
For years, many have suspected that Harvard, America's oldest and most revered educational institution, has artificially tampered with the racial and gender makeup of its student body by denying admission to highly qualified white and Asian applicants in favor of members of other racial groups, even those with less impressive skills, test scores, and resumes.
Those suspicions were confirmed in 2023 when the Supreme Court determined that Harvard College and the University of North Carolina had violated the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian-American applicants in their undergraduate admission processes. The decision effectively ended affirmative action admissions at the college level altogether.
Now it appears that the Harvard Law Review, perhaps the most prestigious legal journal in the country, has likewise repeatedly considered race, gender, and other personal characteristics when evaluating submissions and editorial applicants, according to a series of damning reports from the Washington Free Beacon.
'A spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission.'
When President Donald Trump retook office in January, his administration immediately picked up where the courts left off, investigating Harvard for multiple questionable practices, including alleged "race-based discrimination" at Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review.
"Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission," acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor said in a statement.
A flawed system
The Harvard Law Review is technically an independent nonprofit that is separate from the esteemed college, university, and law school, a point often reiterated in news reports about the federal investigations into alleged discrimination. However, Harvard Law Review trades on the vaunted Harvard reputation and operates in a building located on the Harvard campus.
HLR also hires only second- and third-year Harvard Law students to serve as editors. A student-run editorial staff at a journal like HLR means that some of the most accomplished legal scholars in the world humble themselves by submitting their thoughtful legal analysis and argumentation to amateurs for approval.
Few of them succeed.
Because of its prestige, HLR and other journals like it publish just a tiny fraction of the thousands of submissions they receive. Thus, HLR can — and should — subject these submissions to a rigorous vetting process.
'The author cited 20 men by name,' one editor complained, but only '9 women and 1 non-binary scholar.'
Unfortunately, HLR student editors appear more concerned with giving members of "underrepresented groups" a platform than with publishing sound scholarship, even though a recently published HLR fact sheet insists "the Review does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication."
Back on April 25, the Free Beacon revealed that it had read and analyzed internal Harvard Law Review documents that implicated the journal in what reporter Aaron Sibarium described as "pervasive race discrimination."
Sibarium, as they say, brought the receipts. According to his reports and the documents linked to them, HLR has:
- encouraged prospective student editors to provide an expository statement in their applications that "will not be evaluated for quality of writing or editing" but will supposedly provide a "holistic" picture of the ways their personal "attributes or experiences" might enhance their contributions at HLR;
- passed a resolution in 2021 making "the inclusion of qualified editors from underrepresented groups" its "first priority";
- selected minority women almost exclusively since 2018 to write the foreword for its renowned Supreme Court issue; and
- invited authors to provide their race and gender when submitting work for consideration — and included "trans"-identifying and "gender nonconforming" options in the drop-down menu.
RELATED: Why Trump’s war with Harvard hits closer to home than you think
According to a 2023 HLR orientation presentation shared by the Free Beacon — a presentation that lists "diversity, equity, and inclusion" first on a slide about "living our values" — HLR receives about 3,000 submissions, presumably on an annual basis. Articles editors then use what Sibarium called a "race-conscious rubric" to drain that pool of submissions quickly by giving them a basic read and then assigning them a number between 1 and 5, with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest.
Multiple drafts of the screening rubric shared by the Free Beacon highlight "diversity" — including "author diversity" and "author experience" — as a "plus" that might help HLR achieve its "goals" for a particular volume. According to these drafts of the rubric, the "diversity" component is either present and the piece therefore merits a 5 or is not and the piece is not assessed a diversity score at all.
"We should consider expediting this piece" to the next round, the explanation on the draft rubric says of those given a 5 for diversity. Diversity is the only criterium listed on the rubric that prompts readers to consider "expediting" the piece to the next level.
RELATED: Justice Alito issues reminder of what SCOTUS must do, even if unpopular
In its fact sheet, which may have been published after the initial Free Beacon report, HLR claims it "does not expedite the consideration of articles based on an author’s race, ethnicity, gender, or other protected characteristic." The fact sheet indicates HLR mainly expedites articles in cases in which "less-established professors" have received "exploding offers" from other journals.
In 2024, just 412 submissions to the Harvard Law Review made it to the second screening phase, meaning the "race-conscious rubric" and its "diversity" criterium helped editors filter out about 86% of the total submissions the journal received, according to the Free Beacon.
Those few hundred pieces are then given closer scrutiny in what is known as the "Rotopool" phase. At this point, the identity of the author is concealed, and a randomly assigned student editor reads the piece and summarizes and assesses it in a document known as a memo.
Each of the 50 or so pieces that advance to the third phase is then given to an articles editor, who then writes a more detailed memo called an M-Read. These pieces have since been unblinded, so articles editors know the identities of the authors as well as their race and gender.
The submissions that survive an M-Read continue on through at least three more rounds of evaluation before publication. Only 12 to 16 pieces of the original 3,000 ever make it to print, the orientation presentation noted.
RELATED: Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts
In more than 500 HLR documents from 2024 and 2025, including memos from different phases, the Free Beacon discovered the following:
- "The author cited 20 men by name," one editor complained, but only "9 women and 1 non-binary scholar."
- "Despite occasional references to the 'cisgendered' and 'heterosexual' power-brokers and power structures that dominate in our contemporary era … the article advances a binaristic conception of gender that does not reflect contemporary understandings of gender diversity," said another editor about an article described as a "feminist analysis of antitrust law." "The DEI values advanced by the piece are limited," the editor also lamented.
- "This author is not from an underrepresented background," yet another editor noted in the "negatives" section of an M-Read memo.
- One editor bemoaned that an author cited mainly "male scholars who do not appear to be from underrepresented groups" but who do represent one of the top 14 law schools in the country, abbreviated throughout the memos as "T14."
- A piece by an Asian-American male scholar from Yale that made it all the way to an M-Read was ultimately cut, with one editor suggesting at a meeting about his submission, "We have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors," according to the meeting minutes.
While terms referring to whites and males were apparently used often as pejoratives at HLR, other racial and gender identifiers and indicators were considered bonuses in some cases. For instance, one editor made sure to mention that publishing a particular author would provide "the opportunity to elevate a female scholar from a non-T14 school earlier in her career."
One editor effused that an author cited "predominantly Black singers, rappers, and members of Twitter," while another editor — whose personal writing style seems to involve the overuse of exclamation points and the word extremely — gushed that a piece referred to "a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!"
Recommendations on a 2024 HLR spreadsheet regarding who should write the foreword for the Supreme Court issue — an especially selective process that includes members of the Women, Nonbinary, and Trans Committee as well as another diversity committee — revealed just how fixated editors were on so-called "underrepresented groups":
- The candidacy of one female scholar was promoted because she would be "the first hijabi, Muslim woman to write the Foreword."
- Another candidate would be "one of few Latino professors in this space."
- Yet another would be "the first tenured female Asian American law professor in the US."
The Harvard Law Review did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. HLR previously indicated that the Free Beacon had "selectively" taken some old internal documents out of context.
Legal journal faces legal fallout
Fallout from the revelations in the Harvard Law Review documents has been widespread. Just three days after the initial Free Beacon report was published on April 25, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services announced a joint Title VI investigation into the alleged use of "race-based criteria ... in lieu of merit-based standards" at both Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review.
The DOJ launched another probe into Harvard for alleged race-based discrimination just a few weeks later. The multifront federal investigations prompted an order for the organizations to retain and preserve their documents.
HLR then apparently retaliated against Daniel Wasserman, a recent HLR editor and Harvard Law School graduate who allegedly leaked the internal documents to the Free Beacon, has since cooperated with the feds in the investigation, and now works in the White House under deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller.
The journal reportedly demanded that Wasserman force all parties with whom he allegedly shared the documents to "delete or return" them. Days later, HLR apparently issued Wasserman a "formal reprimand."
"This Formal Reprimand informs you that your actions violate Law Review policies and do not reflect our community expectations," the HLR disciplinary committee wrote on May 22, according to the Free Beacon, which reviewed emails about the matter. "Continued violations may give rise to additional disciplinary proceedings."
Elite institutions like Harvard have been able to get away with 'objectively un-American and discriminatory behaviors' for years because those in power have supported certain forms of race-based discrimination — until Trump.
The reprimand was rescinded just five days later, after allegations that HLR had violated federal protections for whistleblowers. HLR claimed it was not aware at the time it was issued that Wasserman was working with the government.
Former DOJ civil rights division official Jason Torchinsky likened HLR's apparently punitive efforts against Wasserman to witness intimidation.
"What do they call it when a criminal tries to intimidate the witness?" Torchinsky said, according to the Free Beacon. "If you know someone is a witness in a federal investigation, and you try to intimidate them into stopping cooperation with the government, that in itself is its own offense."
Wasserman declined a request for comment from the New York Times.
In response to a request for comment, the Department of Education directed Blaze News to the press release about the investigation. Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
RELATED: Blaze News original: Obama, Biden set stage for Trump's derailing of Harvard's gravy train
Alexander "Shabbos" Kestenbaum, who graduated from Harvard with a master's degree in religion in 2024, filed a lawsuit against Harvard in the wake of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ensuing anti-Semitism that erupted on campus. The plaintiffs claimed the school allowed anti-Semitism to grow and intensify without consequence, resulting in "antisemitic discrimination and abuse."
Kestenbaum told Blaze News that elite institutions like Harvard have been able to get away with "objectively un-American and discriminatory behaviors" for years because those in power have supported certain forms of race-based discrimination — until Trump.
"Up until President Trump, we never had a government — we certainly never had a White House — who was interested in upholding the law and investigating these universities because in many instances, like with President Biden, they actually agreed with these policies that you should artificially elevate individuals based on their sexual orientation, based on their ethnic makeup, based on their racial identities," he explained.
This group of the "cultural elite," Kestenbaum continued, simply does not believe that anti-white, anti-male, or anti-Jewish discrimination is "wrong."
"They actually believe in what Harvard is doing."
Kestenbaum and other plaintiffs reached an undisclosed settlement with Harvard just a few weeks ago. The university did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Others are likewise incensed by the apparent discrimination scandal at HLR.
Scott Yenor, a political science professor at Boise State University and the senior director of state coalitions at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life, told Blaze News: "The HLR practices violate the current understanding of the law, though they are the almost inevitable conclusion of the disparate-impact regime that the Trump admin and Sec. of Ed. Linda McMahon are seeking to get out of our so-called elite institutions."
Aaron Sibarium suggested in a statement to Blaze News that racial discrimination is just one problem at HLR and that the journal should reconsider its entire business model.
The documents from the law review don't just reveal a pattern of race-based decision-making. They illustrate the downsides of a system in which publication decisions are made by students who haven’t even passed the bar.
Whether they submit to the Harvard Law Review or some other journal, legal academics do not have the benefit of a jury of their peers. They are at the mercy of second- and third-year law students — many of them to the left of the average law professor — whose judgments of scholarly merit are saturated with ideological influence.
That’s not to say the peer-review process in other disciplines is apolitical. But it may provide a baseline of maturity and expertise that — if the documents from Harvard are any indication — many law students seem to lack.
Editor's note: Matthew Peterson, the editor in chief of Blaze News, is a Washington fellow for the Claremont Institute.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Santa Ono’s DEI disaster: Florida board stands firm, refuses to rubber-stamp controversial university nomination
Earlier this month, a former DEI-loving University of Michigan president suffered national embarrassment after Florida higher-ed officials voted against his nomination to become the next president of the University of Florida. The vote shows that the academic's professed change of heart on DEI was met with significant skepticism.
Earlier this month, Santa Ono — the former University of Michigan president who spent years advocating for diversity, equity, and inclusion only to distance himself from the woke philosophy in recent months — suffered national embarrassment after Florida higher-ed officials voted against his nomination to become the next president of the University of Florida. The vote shows that the academic's professed change of heart on DEI was met with significant skepticism.
Ono's failed nomination and the allegations of serious academic misconduct still hovering around several former Ivy League leaders indicate that far-left causes célèbres, especially regarding DEI, seem to have fallen out of favor even at the university level.
Perhaps more importantly, it seems the work of some high-profile university administrators is finally facing much-needed scrutiny.
RELATED: Harvard president Claudine Gay resigns in disgrace, paints herself as a victim of 'racial animus'
All the right credentials, all the right politics
Santa Ono is a familiar face in higher education. At 62 years old, Ono has served as president at some of the most prestigious universities in North America: Michigan, British Columbia, and Cincinnati. He has a PhD in experimental medicine from McGill University, is an immunologist, and once worked as an associate professor at the Harvard School of Medicine.
And until recently, Ono had unapologetically embraced DEI. For instance, he stated that "systemic racism is embedded into every corner of any institution," claimed he and his family had been victims of systemic racism, and pledged to do "the work" of eradicating systemic racism from the University of Michigan through a program he called "DEI 2.0."
To his credit, Ono did withstand slings and arrows from UM radicals after he axed DEI 2.0 in March, following President Donald Trump's executive order banning DEI practices. However, he admitted to nixing the program mainly on account of "federal executive orders, guidance, and funding cuts bringing urgency to the issue," not because of any personal misgivings about it.
'I’m excited to be part of that.'
In early May, reports began to circulate that Ono was vying for the presidential position at the University of Florida, vacated last summer by Republican former U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska. The news that Ono was leaving UM shocked many since he seemed deeply committed to the school. Having just joined it in 2022, Ono then signed a contract in October that extended his tenure as president there until 2032.
RELATED: From Wuhan to Michigan: Feds nab ANOTHER Chinese scholar in alleged bio-material smuggling plot
Still, announcements about Ono's candidacy published as early as May 4 revealed he was the only person the search committee had recommended for the Florida job. The UF Board of Trustees then voted unanimously to approve him on May 27.
Ono's confirmation at UF seemed all but assured.
He certainly expressed confidence. In an op-ed entitled "Why I Chose the University of Florida" published by Insider Higher Ed on May 8, Ono wrote: "Florida is building something truly exceptional. I’m excited to be part of that."
Then, Ono ran into Florida officials focused on removing leftist ideology from the state's university system.
Anti-woke board challenges Ono on DEI record
Since his re-election in 2022, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has worked hard to purge wokeness from all levels of education under his purview. As governor, DeSantis is entrusted with appointing individuals who share his values to the university system board of governors to oversee the state's 12 universities, including the University of Florida.
Ono seemingly understood that his previous promotion of DEI could harm his chances of landing a job in a state like Florida, which is wary of neo-Marxism, critical race theory, and DEI. So in the Inside Higher Ed op-ed, he copped to his erstwhile support for DEI, claiming he believed it was originally intended to ensure "equal opportunity and fairness for every student" but that it had unfortunately morphed into an agent of "ideology, division, and bureaucracy."
'He didn't have to do that.'
Ono — who four years ago penned an op-ed entitled "Universities Must Do More to Address the Climate Emergency" — further insisted he had "declined to politicize the institutions" he led and eschewed "ideological capture" at universities more generally. He then promised to uphold the "vision and values for public higher education" as expressed by Floridian leaders, ostensibly including DeSantis.
"If I am approved, UF will remain a campus where all students are safe, where differing views can be heard, and where the rule of law is respected," Ono pledged (emphasis added).
Gov. DeSantis, who said he found many of Ono's statements "cringe"-worthy but otherwise more or less stayed out of the nomination, deferred to those directly involved in the vetting process to determine whether Ono's change of heart on DEI was sincere.
"It’s their judgment that he’s really kind of reached the limit on the campus leftism," DeSantis told reporters, "and he would want to leave Michigan, where that is prevalent, to Florida, where it’s frowned upon, because he wants to be more in line with what Florida is doing and our policies."
RELATED: DEI-vestment: University of Florida sheds ‘inclusion’ for innovation
Ono continued to distance himself from his DEI-filled past during an interview with the University of Florida Board of Trustees on May 27, claiming that his opinions on systemic racism "evolved over time" and that no group or institution should ever be tarred with a "blanket definition or label."
The board of trustees was apparently so eager to make Ono the next UF president that they accepted Ono's explanations regarding his DEI "volte-face" with little skepticism, according to an op-ed from Scott Yenor and Steven DeRose. Yenor and DeRose characterized the BOT as "embarrassing" automatons who simply "nodded" along as Ono attempted to explain away his past.
Yenor and DeRose likewise described Ono as a "dishonorable man," a "fanatical opportunist," and an empty suit.
Yenor and DeRose were not the only ones alarmed by Ono's nomination. Florida Republicans in Congress — Sen. Rick Scott and Reps. Byron Donalds, Jimmy Patronis, and Greg Steube — all voiced their opposition to Ono, as did Donald Trump Jr., Charlie Kirk, and some members of the public.
The Florida board of governors apparently heeded those concerns. Paul Renner, a former speaker of the Florida House and a member of the BOG, told Blaze News that he was greatly "troubled" by the disconnect between Ono's "horrendous record on DEI" and his statements to the UF trustees.
"If you give an interview and everything you've said is directly contradicted by the public record, that's a problem, a problem of candor," Renner said.
Yenor, a political science professor at Boise State University and the senior director of state coalitions at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life, gave Blaze News a similar assessment of Ono.
"He changed his view on a whole host of issues at a convenient time in order to get a job," Yenor explained. "That shows that his convictions are for sale."
Because of Ono's seemingly shallow convictions, DeRose likened him to a "political windsock," borrowing the imagery from another source.
Ono did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Renner and his fellow members of the board of governors used their interview with Ono in the first week of June to challenge him on his DEI record as well as other issues.
Governor Carson Good, for example, pressed Ono on his decision to require UM students to receive COVID boosters as late as 2023. Despite his background in immunology and experimental medicine, Ono claimed he had simply followed the recommendation of UM health officials, stammering that he is "basically a mouse doctor."
"I don't think he's a strong leader," Renner reiterated to Blaze News, characterizing Ono instead as "opportunistic."
"He's not in the camp of somebody who felt like they had to [promote DEI] to keep their job," Renner continued. "He did it with his own face in a lot of these videos. He cut professional productions that talked about two spirits and transgenderism and thinking beyond the binary."
"He didn't have to do that."
Yenor seems to agree, telling Blaze News that Ono is "not someone who's taken any lumps for changing his views" on DEI.
In response to a request for comment, a DeSantis administration official gave Blaze News the following statement: "The governor appointed people to the Florida Board of Governors who are conservative and aligned to use their judgment, and he had confidence in their ability to be able to discharge this responsibility."
'A very, very, very easy decision'
Ultimately, only six members of the board of governors voted in favor of Ono's nomination. Meanwhile, Renner, Good, and eight other governors voted against it.
That 10-6 vote marked the first time in the BOG's 22-year history that members had rejected a candidate for university president. It may even have been the first vote of its kind in American history.
Most liberals and their allies in the media bewailed the politics involved in the BOG's decision.
'Many of the repudiations that Dr. Ono took were only taken after it was clear he was being seriously considered for the University of Florida job.'
The Gainesville Sun brooded that Ono was "grilled" over so many "flashpoints in the culture wars" — DEI, so-called climate change, and gender-related interventions for minors — that have been "waged by Florida's ruling conservatives."
"It’s an absolute embarrassment. The political questions that were being asked portends more politics in the process and less focus on academics," howled Amanda Phalin, a former BOG member and a current business professor at UF, according to the Miami Herald, which also claimed Ono had been "clearly caught off-guard" by the BOG's questions.
"Because of your insistence on performative politics, you chose to question him repeatedly on hot button political issues and then refused to accept his thoughtful answers," fumed another UF professor, Dr. Michael Haller, who self-identifies as an "ally" of non-heterosexual people, according his X bio.
"No qualified apolitical leader will ever come near our campus again with an eye on sitting in a leadership role."
However, Zack Smith of the Heritage Foundation — who, as a trustee of the University of West Florida and Pensacola State College, knows something of the nomination process — denied that Ono was ambushed by the BOG.
"The concern many people had [was] it didn't seem so much as a 'road to Damascus'-type conversion as it did a conversion of convenience, where many of the actions, many of the repudiations that Dr. Ono took were only taken after it was clear he was being seriously considered for the University of Florida job," Smith explained to Blaze News.
When asked whether members of the BOG faced undue pressure from high-profile Florida conservatives to block Ono's nomination, both Smith and Renner disputed that such pressure would have influenced the governors' vote one way or the other.
"If you look at the members of the board of governors," Smith said, "they are not wilting wallflowers themselves. Many have experience in state government and a host of different industries as well, and so I doubt that they were pressured by anyone."
Governor Renner confirmed that "there was a crucible" but added that the heat comes with the BOG territory: "If you don't like pressure on an issue like this, don't sign up for the job."
"For me, this was a very, very, very easy decision."
'Unprecedented'
Because the BOG vote to block Ono's nomination was so "unprecedented," it likewise revealed another problem with the higher-education system: The process to select a university president has seemingly been little more than political theater.
A school typically hires a search firm that then crafts a carefully worded job description that, according to Yenor, will attract a particular candidate or a particular type of candidate — likely one who shares their values. The University of Florida, for instance, may have signaled a preference for DEI-supporting prospects like Ono by hiring SP&A, which describes itself as "a boutique woman- and minority-owned executive search firm."
In Florida, once a board of trustees votes on a candidate, he or she is then passed along to the state board of governors, who until Ono have apparently rubber-stamped every nominee they've been asked to consider.
'Thank you so much for saving the University of Florida.'
Several sources indicated to Blaze News that the BOG was right to be concerned about Ono and to treat his hearing not as a pro forma exercise with the result already predetermined but as an opportunity to vet his true personal and professional character.
"I think the board acted appropriately to ask some very hard, very serious questions of Dr. Ono," Smith said. "Their final sign-off approval was placed there for a reason."
Yenor claimed that the Ono case may yet show that "the era where people defer to the experts is over."
The UF Board of Trustees, especially Chair Mori Hosseini, which had just voted unanimously in support of Ono, blasted the BOG for rejecting his nomination. Hosseini — who has donated generously to Florida Republicans in the past, including more than $1 million to DeSantis' failed presidential bid — called the decision "deeply disappointing."
"You all decided today is the day you’re going to take somebody down," Hosseini told the BOG directly.
RELATED: Florida first lady gives hint on possible run for governor
By contrast, Renner told Blaze News that while he did receive multiple complaints from UF associates about his vote against Ono, some UF faculty members secretly expressed their appreciation for stymieing the Ono nomination. "Thank you so much for saving the University of Florida," he recalled them saying.
For his part, Ono remains loyal to the University of Michigan, the school he ditched in favor of the University of Florida. Though he acknowledged in his resignation message some disagreement with the UM Board of Regents, as of Wednesday afternoon, Ono's X profile still has the hashtag "Go Blue!" In fact, there's even an outside chance that he could stay at the school as a member of the faculty.
The University of Michigan did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
The sources who spoke with Blaze News did not share any insights as to who may be on the radar screen for the UF presidential vacancy, but most are optimistic that the right candidate is out there.
Renner indicated that he or she may be found within traditional academic circles. "There's good people out there," he explained. "I hope they do the right thing the next time around. But if it's the same thing, guess what? It's going to be the same answer. So I hope a message has been sent to pick somebody who is an actual leader on this issue and has all the academic credentials they want."
DeRose and Smith, by contrast, believe that the school should consider candidates outside of academia. DeRose claimed UF must look for a leader from another industry to demonstrate a true commitment to "education reform."
"Florida doesn't need a president who's just now evolving on DEI. They need the anti-DEI 2.0 president," he explained. "You're not going to find that from people who have traditional backgrounds in academia."
"There certainly are other good candidates out there," Smith claimed, "if they kind of widen their search net."
Editor's note: Matthew Peterson, the editor in chief of Blaze News, is a Washington fellow for the Claremont Institute.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Obama Judge Escalates Attack On Executive Authority With Injunction Allowing Foreign Students At Harvard
A U.S. district judge escalated her attack on executive authority to control immigration on Friday by indefinitely blocking the Trump administration from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students. The preliminary injunction, which extends her initial temporary restraining order, was issued by Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee serving in Massachusetts. She issued the […]Why Trump’s war with Harvard hits closer to home than you think
Harvard University — the gold-plated symbol of American elitism — is in the fight of its life, and it’s a battle of its own making.
For the past month, Harvard has been locked in a standoff with the Trump administration over student visas, foreign money, anti-Semitism, and compliance with federal law. This is more than just another Beltway spat. This is a tectonic clash between the people who built this country and the elites who now believe they own it.
Why are taxpayers subsidizing institutions that actively undermine the very values that built this country?
To most Americans, Harvard stands for privilege, power, and a snobbish culture far removed from the everyday citizen. So why should you care what happens to Harvard?
Because this isn’t just about one Ivy League school. It’s about whether America will remain a free republic — or continue down the path of ideological capture by radical institutions.
It all began in April, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard provide records of foreign students involved in illegal, violent, or disruptive activities — like the kind of protests we saw last year that devolved into pro-Hamas encampments. Harvard missed the deadline. So the Trump administration pulled the plug: No more international student enrollments for Harvard.
To say that hurt would be an understatement. Foreign students make up 27% of Harvard’s student body — more than 6,700 individuals. Their tuition is a massive cash cow. Harvard sued, of course, and a federal judge has temporarily paused the visa ban. But the message from Trump’s Department of Homeland Security was clear: Comply with federal law or face the consequences.
Then came a broader move: The administration paused all new student visa interviews nationwide while it considers expanding social media vetting for foreign applicants. After the chaos we saw on campuses last fall, that seems like basic common sense.
Shut off the spigot
Next, the Trump administration turned off the federal funding faucet — more than $3 billion in research grants and contracts frozen. Harvard screamed censorship and filed another lawsuit, claiming this was a First Amendment violation. But let’s pause here: Harvard has a $53 billion endowment. That’s more than the GDP of more than 120 countries.
Why does an institution that rich receive any federal funding, let alone billions? Since World War II, the federal government has been throwing money at universities for research, including the development of the atomic bomb. Once the spigot opened, it never shut. Today, your taxpayer dollars are funding a $50,000 research project into the effects of coffee.
Congress is finally waking up. A bill is working its way through the Senate that would slap a tax on massive university endowments. Harvard alone could be facing an $850 million annual tax bill. About time!
Behind the crackdown
Three key factors are driving Trump’s fight with Harvard.
The first reason is anti-Semitism. Harvard, like many elite schools, turned a blind eye to vile anti-Jewish sentiment after the October 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel. The administration says enough is enough — and it’s right.
Second, Harvard has refused to comply with the 2023 Supreme Court decision declaring race-based admissions unconstitutional. The message from Harvard? We’re above the law.
Third, Harvard has been deeply entrenched in woke ideological corruption. Trump said it plainly on the campaign trail: Elite universities like Harvard are controlled by “Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” That’s not hyperbole. Harvard has abandoned its motto, Veritas — truth — in favor of radical conformity.
RELATED: Higher ed’s shield shatters under Trump’s new directive
Just 9% of Harvard students identify as conservative. Among faculty, that number is a jaw-dropping 2.5%. This is a monoculture, not any sort of “marketplace of ideas.”
And it’s getting worse. In March, a Harvard professor openly called for firing any faculty who don’t support “gender-affirming care” for children. Think about that. This is not education. This is indoctrination.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression recently ranked Harvard dead last in the country for free speech. It scored zero out of 100.
A fight beyond Harvard
Maybe you’re thinking, “Yeah, Harvard’s always been liberal. What else is new?” Here’s what is new: The radicalism cultivated behind ivy-covered walls has spilled into the real world.
We’ve had a cultural lab leak. Academic ideas once confined to lecture halls — critical race theory, diversity, equity, and inclusion measures, gender ideology, climate hysteria — are now infecting K-12 classrooms, human resources departments, government agencies, and even the military.
This is no longer a theoretical problem. It’s practical. It’s personal. It affects your children’s education, your job, your freedom of speech, and your values.
So here’s the question we should all be asking: Why are taxpayers subsidizing institutions that actively undermine the very principles and beliefs that built this country?
Trump’s war on Harvard is about more than visas, lawsuits, or even money. It’s about reclaiming the soul of America from those who have hijacked it. Harvard may have prestige, but it no longer has integrity. It certainly doesn’t need your money — or your consent.
It’s time to cut off the funding, tax the endowment, and force accountability. Because in the fight for America’s future, no institution should be above the people who pay the bills.
Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn'sFREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com