Her judgement also stated that the Trump administration violated Harvard’s constitutional rights to free speech. In her view, concerns over anti-Semitism were a smokescreen for an ideologically motivated attack on America’s premier universities. Importantly the judgement criticised Harvard as well, describing it as being plagued by anti-Semitism for years.

About 80 Harvard students and professors rallied on campus to celebrate the verdict. Kirsten Weld, a history professor and president of the Harvard Chapter of American Association of University Professors called on the university to resist making a deal with the Trump administration. However, Harvard’s trustees have not ruled out making such a deal and other universities seem to be taking the approach of looking to strike a deal. 

In contrast other elite universities seem to have at least tacitly accepted the charges of anti-Semitism. Brown is the latest to reach an agreement with the administration. Columbia, the first to agree terms with the administration, has started implementing its agreement.  It is setting up a $21m (£15m) fund from which Jewish employees who believe themselves to be victims of anti-Semitism can claim compensation.

The Harvard leadership is probably wise not to publicly rule out negotiations. The administration has announced its intention to appeal. This could see the case referred to the circuit courts or the administration might even try to fast-track it to the right-leaning Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court has favoured the Trump administration in several controversial cases. 

It has also emerged that the Department of Government Efficiency has been active in trying to cancel Harvard funding. That is not so much on the grounds of campus anti-Semitism but rather on the basis that various projects are not aligned with government policy. It is claimed they run counter to the so-called Defend the Spend initiative.

Whatever ultimately happens in the world of realpolitik, Burroughs’s judgement is a significant moment. Commentary is increasingly looking at the moral aspects of the Trump administration’s campaign against universities. The fact that she is Jewish has been commented on in the Harvard Crimson, the university’s student newspaper itself and also in Jewish media. The judgement is balanced and hard-hitting, plainly pointing out the shortcomings of both sides in the dispute.

Not only that but doubts about the sincerity of the administration’s campaign to combat anti-Semitism will likely be challenged by a point of contention. One media report suggested one of the administration’s leading lawyers, Michael Velchik, when a student at Harvard, enjoyed reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf. According to the report, when required to write an essay from the perspective of a significant historical figure he chose the German dictator. This gives credence to the view that anti-Semitism is, at least in part, being weaponised in the administration’s assault against universities. There is a real risk to Jewish faculty and students if they are perceived to have benefited unfairly from this alleged campaign.

Neither have free speech concerns disappeared. As the Wall Street Journal ironically pointed out if the Democrats were to use similar tactics to target conservatives and climate sceptics on campus, the Republicans would be up in arms. The Burroughs verdict expresses the same concern. It points out that if speech the administration deems anti-Semitic is not protected then, by the same logic, the speech of Jews could be suppressed.

Because Harvard has, uniquely, chosen to fight in court, it is important to try to accurately gauge the extent of anti-Semitism on its campus. The disastrous congressional testimony by Claudine Gay, then its president, in January 2024 suggested real problems did exist. She argued that calls for genocide of Jews did not necessarily violate Harvard’s policy on speech. 

However, leading Jewish figures at Harvard such as Steven Pinker have argued that matters never reached the point where the Civil Rights Act was breached. In his view government intervention was therefore not justified. This is all the more notable as he has slated Harvard. on such matters as viewpoint diversity and free speech and also for not embracing institutional neutrality 

The point is that Harvard was prepared to fight its corner. So, by implication, it believed that, however bad things were on campus, it did not breach the Civil Rights Act. This makes for an interesting comparison with those universities which decided not to join Harvard’s legal challenge. Their absence could be taken as a tacit admission that they thought they probably were breaching the act. 

In view of all these developments it will be interesting to see if the administration and Harvard strike a deal. If so attention will focus on its terms. In relation to anti-Semitism in particular these will include how much compensation the university is required to pay to Jewish students and staff.

Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.

PHOTO: "Steven Pinker in 2023" by Cmichel67 is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.