2025年5月31日, When Harvard University dug in its heels against threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, his administration doubled down with a laundry list of demands, including access to private student records and changes to who can even attend the school. Andrew Chang breaks down Trump’s targeted attacks against the nation’s oldest university and what this battle means for the partnership between government and higher education.
當哈佛大學面對美國總統唐納德·特朗普的威脅時，他的政府加倍提出了一大堆要求，包括訪問私人學生記錄和更改誰可以上學。 Andrew Chang分析了特朗普對美國最古老的大學的有針對性的攻擊，以及這場戰鬥對政府和高等教育之間的夥伴關係意味著什麼。
DeepSeek gives a comprehensive summary:
文件：《如何摧毀哈佛大學》詳細摘要
概述
這段文字記錄了特朗普政府與哈佛大學之間不斷升級的衝突，敘述者將其形容為一場「全面戰爭」。政府通過財政削減、監管威脅和意識形態要求等多種手段向哈佛施壓，理由是反猶太主義和校園治理問題。哈佛拒絕屈服，導致法律對抗和嚴重的財政後果。
重點內容
1. 特朗普對哈佛的不滿
特朗普總統及其政府指責哈佛縱容反猶太主義、極左意識形態和激進思想。
特朗普稱哈佛是「瘋狂激進分子」的溫床，破壞國家團結。
政府以哈佛的財政狀況、國際學生計劃和捐贈基金作為施壓工具。
2. 先例：哥倫比亞大學
特朗普政府取消了哥倫比亞大學4億美元的聯邦資助和合約，理由是該校在親巴勒斯坦抗議活動中容忍反猶太主義。
哥倫比亞妥協，接受了包括暫停抗議學生、禁止非醫療用途的面具、重組特定學術部門等要求。
哈佛則選擇抵抗，引發更嚴厲的報復。
3. 針對哈佛的攻擊手段
a. 財政打壓
聯邦資助與合約：
超過22億美元的聯邦研究經費（用於醫學、人工智能等領域）被凍結。
所有聯邦合約（如5萬美元的NIH咖啡研究、2.6萬美元的國土安全部培訓）面臨取消，總計約1億美元。
未來合約可能完全排除哈佛。
捐贈基金稅：
共和黨提議將哈佛的捐贈基金稅率從1.4%提高至21%（副總統JD·萬斯曾提案35%）。
這可能使哈佛每年損失約8.5億美元，威脅其長期學術項目。
b. 國際學生
國土安全部（DHS）撤銷了哈佛的SEVP認證，禁止其招收新的國際學生。
理由： 哈佛未滿足政府要求，包括提交外國學生的紀律記錄和抗議活動錄像。
影響： 國際學生（佔總學生6,800/25,000）是重要收入來源（學費約14億美元/年）。
聯邦法官暫時恢復了哈佛的SEVP認證，但法律戰仍在繼續。
c. 意識形態要求
哈佛被要求：
改革被視為反猶太主義的治理、招生和課程。
嚴懲違規抗議者。
採用更嚴格的反猶太主義定義。
哈佛拒絕，稱這些要求侵犯憲法第一修正案和學術自由。
4. 哈佛的回應
法律行動： 起訴美國政府，成功獲臨時禁令以保留SEVP認證。
抗爭： 拒絕妥協，指責政府越權。
財政韌性： 儘管擁有530億美元捐贈基金，但大部分資金受限，無法用於填補法律或運營缺口。
5. 更廣泛的影響
聲譽： 若失去國際學生和研究資金，哈佛作為全球頂尖學府的地位可能受損。
政治轉向： 共和黨對精英大學的態度趨於強硬，哈佛成為保守派與高等教育「決裂」的象徵。
長期損害： 即使哈佛存活，政府的打壓仍可能削弱其財政和學術實力。
結論
特朗普政府的多管齊下——財政削減、監管威脅和意識形態管控——旨在迫使哈佛屈服或使其元氣大傷。儘管哈佛的財富和法律資源提供了一定防禦，但累積影響（收入損失、研究能力下降、聲譽受損）仍構成生存威脅。這場衝突反映了美國教育、言論自由和機構自治的更大政治鬥爭。
最後說明： 敘述者認為，特朗普或許無法「摧毀」哈佛，但足以讓其付出沉重代價。
Document: Comprehensive Summary of “How to Destroy Harvard University”
Overview
The transcript details the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard University, framed as an “all-out war” by the narrator. The administration employs multiple strategies to pressure Harvard, including financial cuts, regulatory threats, and ideological demands, citing concerns over anti-Semitism and campus governance. Harvard resists, leading to legal battles and significant financial repercussions.
Key Points
1. Trump’s Grievances Against Harvard
President Trump and his administration accuse Harvard of fostering anti-Semitism, far-left ideologies, and radicalism.
Trump describes Harvard as a hub for “crazed and radicalized lunatics” undermining national unity.
The administration targets Harvard’s finances, international student program, and endowment as leverage.
2. Precedent: Columbia University
The Trump administration canceled $400 million in grants and contracts for Columbia University, citing anti-Semitism during pro-Palestinian protests.
Columbia complied with demands, including suspending protesters, banning masks, and restructuring certain academic departments.
Harvard, unlike Columbia, resisted, prompting harsher retaliation.
3. Lines of Attack Against Harvard
a. Financial Pressure
Federal Grants and Contracts:
Over $2.2 billion in federal grants (for research in medicine, AI, etc.) were frozen.
All federal contracts (e.g., a $50,000 NIH coffee study, $26,000 DHS training) are slated for cancellation, totaling ~$100 million.
Future contracts may exclude Harvard entirely.
Endowment Tax:
Republicans propose raising Harvard’s endowment tax from 1.4% to 21% (originally 35% in a bill by VP JD Vance).
This could cost Harvard ~$850 million annually, threatening long-term academic programs.
b. International Students
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard’s SEVP certification, barring new international students.
Rationale: Harvard failed to meet demands, including disclosing disciplinary records of foreign students and providing protest footage.
Impact: International students (6,800 of 25,000 total) contribute significantly to revenue (~$1.4 billion/year in tuition).
A federal judge temporarily reinstated Harvard’s SEVP certification, but the legal battle continues.
c. Ideological Demands
Harvard was asked to:
Reform governance, admissions, and programs deemed anti-Semitic.
Punish rule-breaking protesters more harshly.
Adopt a stricter definition of anti-Semitism.
Harvard refused, citing First Amendment protections and academic freedom.
4. Harvard’s Response
Legal Action: Sued the U.S. government, securing a temporary injunction to preserve SEVP certification.
Defiance: Rejected demands as overreach, arguing they violate institutional autonomy.
Financial Resilience: While wealthy ($53 billion endowment), much is donor-restricted and cannot cover legal or operational shortfalls.
5. Broader Implications
Reputation: Harvard’s prestige as a global institution is at risk if it loses international students and research funding.
Political Shift: The GOP’s stance on elite universities has hardened, with Harvard symbolizing a “rupture” in conservative-higher education relations.
Long-Term Damage: Even if Harvard survives, the administration’s actions could weaken its financial and academic standing.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s multi-pronged assault—financial cuts, regulatory threats, and ideological policing—aims to force Harvard into compliance or inflict lasting harm. While Harvard’s wealth and legal resources provide some defense, the cumulative impact (lost revenue, reduced research capacity, and reputational damage) poses an existential threat. The conflict reflects broader political battles over education, free speech, and institutional autonomy in the U.S.
Final Note: The narrator concludes that while Trump may not “destroy” Harvard, he can significantly diminish its influence and stability.
