Harvard surrenders! University professor ALAN DERSHOWITZ reveals the secret deal being struck with Trump... and it'll make his woke colleagues furious

Many in the mainstream media and academia are cheering on Harvard University as this storied institution has, in the words of the New York Times, 'decided to fight the Trump administration.'

But as a Harvard faculty member for more than 60 years, I can tell you that's not quite what is actually happening.

Don't tell Harvard's left-wing professors, but the university seems ready to make a deal with President Trump.

On Wednesday morning, the president upped the ante after threatening to withdraw the university's tax-exempt status and gut nearly $2.3 billion in federal funding over a list of grievances, including Harvard's failure to address an explosion of antisemitic hatred in classrooms and on campus.

'Everyone knows that Harvard has "lost its way",' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.'

You may have expected Harvard's President Alan Garber, a man I know and admire, to be defiant in the face of such an onslaught, and while he is putting up a combative front, he seems to be preparing to negotiate a settlement.

That's something that legions of far-left academicians and advisers may find abhorrent. But it's the reality.

While Harvard University is older than the US, richer than many countries (with its $50 billion endowment), and among the most influential academic institutions in the world, it depends on federal research grants, tax-deductible contributions from alumni and tax exemptions on its profits to perform its educational and research functions.

Indeed, Garber has issued a bellicose response to Trump in the form of a letter, publicly refusing to compromise the academic independence of the institution, writing: 'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.'

That is a sentiment that I largely agree with.

But at the same time, Harvard has retained lawyers — Ballard Partners — who are close to Trump and his administration and have a history of arranging complex agreements.

Garber's missive is clearly intended to placate Harvard's largely left-wing faculty and administrators, for whom any capitulation to Trump would be academic treason. Defending the independence of the university from any governmental interference, especially from the Trump administration, is required for any university president to survive.

Witness what happened when Columbia University's temporary president, Dr Katrina Armstrong, appeared to capitulate to White House demands last month and, among other reforms, appoint a new official to oversee departments that offer biased courses on the Middle East.

Armstrong was unceremoniously pressured to resign.

For all of Garber's maneuvering, he surely realizes that he is unlikely to emerge victorious from a long drawn-out courtroom confrontation with Trump. He also must know that the Trump administration would benefit politically from a courtroom fight with Harvard, regardless of the legal outcome which is anything but certain. So, instead, Harvard has sent a more subtle message to the Trump administration by retaining lawyers that he can work with.

Perhaps the Trump administration has been overbroad in demands to 'audit' the views of students and staff, exert more influence over course material and slash funds from legitimate research projects.

But these are complex and nuanced issues, but for many academics, that choice is simple: whatever side Trump is on is wrong.

Well, reforming our corrupted academic elitist class and fighting antisemitic bigotry is not wrong. That is why I support a negotiated compromise. In fact, it is essential.

The truth is that many of the government's demands are quite reasonable and necessary.

Harvard does have a serious lack of intellectual, ideological, and political diversity. It is largely a left-wing institution where many points of view are effectively muzzled, largely by self-censorship and peer pressure.

To give one very personal illustration: for 50 years, I was among the most popular faculty members, teaching and lecturing to over 10,000 students.

But since October 7, 2023, when Hamas perpetrated the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust, I have never once been invited to present my centrist pro-Israel position on campus. Even before that, the one time I was invited by a student group, my talk had to be moved off campus for fear of my safety.

Dozens of students have communicated with me in recent years about how they feel silenced. These include not only Jewish and Zionist students but also Christian and conservative students. The same is true for some faculty members.

Harvard's culture is infected by a deeply rooted cultural bias that even President Trump cannot quickly cure.

This is largely attributable to Harvard's tenured faculty, whose rehabilitation is nearly impossible and utterly impractical, because these professors–whose jobs are contractually protected–are essentially accountable to no one. That academic freedom, while justified in many ways, has been abused for decades.

The oppressive campus culture is also due to 'programs' and departments that are inherently ideological. These include Women Studies, Gay Studies, Black Studies, and yes, Jewish Studies departments. These divisions and similar ones tend to be more ideological than academic. In addition, there are the racial, ethnic and gender offices, such as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). These entrenched bureaucracies have undue influence.

Harvard has already settled two lawsuits brought by several Jewish students and organizations alleging antisemitism on campus, and - without admitting any wrongdoing - the university has pledged to do more to confront the biases that result in de facto discrimination against certain students and faculty.

A negotiated settlement between Harvard and the Trump administration may be another step toward reform, but it cannot be the last.

Finally, for those who claim that their defense of university autonomy and academic freedom is ideologically neutral, it is important to remember the 1950s, when I was a college student. In those bad old days, many recalcitrant southern universities had been forced by the federal government to integrate their student bodies, yet the schools were still tolerating the harassment of African American students and teaching racist curricula.

Had the federal government threatened to withhold funding from such racist universities unless there were changes, many liberals, civil libertarians and advocates of academic freedom would have applauded.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, many progressive academics are taking exactly the opposite position they would've taken back in the 1950s.

For them, it's about politics, not principles.

For me it's about principles, consistency and neutrality.