Destroyed research programs. Shuttered labs. Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers fleeing elsewhere.
In a court filing on Monday, Harvard University painted a bleak picture for its research enterprise if the funding taken away by the Trump administration is not restored.
“The harm would be severe and long lasting,” John H. Shaw, the university’s vice provost for research, wrote in the 17-page declaration that is part of Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump administration. “Money cannot repair the lost time, talent, and opportunity.”
Republicans have often argued that universities have not been good stewards of taxpayer money. In past statements, the Trump administration officials have said the university has forfeited the opportunity to receive taxpayer funds.
Dr. Shaw, however, wrote that it was defunding ongoing research efforts that was wasteful. He cited the loss of continuity, including lost seasons of data collection in environmental research and missed check-ins for longitudinal health studies.
“These losses would set back entire fields, slow discovery, and waste public investment,” Dr. Shaw wrote.
Harvard sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it had frozen more than $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and contracts to the university. The move came after Harvard rejected demands from the Trump administration that would have reshaped the university and ceded control to the government on matters it holds dear, including student admissions and academic freedom.
The administration accused the university of failing to curb antisemitism and keep Jewish students safe along with hostility toward conservatives and a lack of viewpoint diversity.
In its lawsuit, Harvard said the government was using money as “leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard.” On Monday, Dr. Shaw described what was at stake.
From April 14, the day Harvard said it would reject a series of intrusive demands from the Trump administration, to May 6, the university received seven stop work orders for research awards totaling $76 million, he wrote. After that, the floodgates opened, and the federal government terminated 950 projects totaling about $2.4 billion.
Grants slashed in May included an $88 million award to study pediatric H.I.V. and AIDS, a $10 million award to combat antibiotic-resistant infections, and a $7 million grant to develop ways to detect breast cancer.
“Lab shutdowns would dismantle physical infrastructure and sever research workflows,” he wrote. “Sensitive equipment would sit idle and degrade. Perishable samples would spoil. Live specimens would be euthanized.”
Dr. Shaw also described the potential human toll on the Harvard community. The university employs 1,800 research faculty and staff members with federal funds, and more than 1,500 graduate students and postdoctoral researchers receive stipends, tuition or salaries from federal research support.
Some professors who had wanted the university to more forcefully resist the Trump administration have urged Harvard to rely on its $53 billion endowment to plug the holes left by the withdrawal of money by the federal government. But much of the money is restricted, and the vast quantity of money at stake would not make that viable for the long term.
In a separate filing on Monday, the university described the steps it had taken to address antisemitism and protect Jewish students, which the Trump administration has cited as its reason for attacking the institution.
These included tightening protest policies to bar even silent demonstrations in the library, adopting a definition of antisemitism that includes some criticisms of Israel and terminating an employee who tore down a Chabad poster.
The university was seeking a quick decision on Monday against the Trump administration, arguing that the government had violated its First Amendment rights and had not adhered to required procedures. On Monday, the American Association of University Professors and the United Auto Workers, which represents graduate students at the university, also asked the court for a quick victory, for similar reasons as those cited by Harvard.
In its motion, Harvard called the research terminations “unreasonable and unreasoned.”
“The Government asserts antisemitism concerns as the basis for its actions,” the university wrote, “but fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.”
Vimal Patel writes about higher education with a focus on speech and campus culture.
Stephanie Saul reports on colleges and universities, with a recent focus on the dramatic changes in college admissions and the debate around diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education.
The post Harvard Argues Cutting Off Its Government Funding Is Wasteful appeared first on New York Times.
