That’s essentially what Judge Allison Burroughs said in her 84-page opinion, which includes new details from legal discovery on how the Administration leveraged federal funds to try to control Harvard’s hiring, admissions and curriculum.
On April 3 the government sent Harvard a list of “pre-conditions” to continue receiving federal money. Harvard had a “choice”—the Administration’s euphemism for its ultimatum—between installing “new leadership in problematic depts” and “receivership.” The government also sought a first lien on all Harvard assets “as collateral” in the event that Harvard failed to comply with its demands.
A week later the Administration detailed further conditions. The government told Harvard to do an external audit of “viewpoint diversity” in “each department, field, or teaching unit.” To provide ill-defined balance, it demanded that the school hire “a critical mass of new faculty” and admit “a critical mass of students.” When Harvard refused, the Administration froze the $2.2 billion in funds.
The Administration cited federal regulations that let the government terminate a grant if it “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” This was a switcheroo, according to the judge, because officials earlier had claimed authority to end the grants because Harvard allegedly broke the Civil Rights Act by tolerating antisemitism on campus.