What cheers at Harvard and boos at Columbia reveal about Trump’s campus war

When Harvard President Alan Garber took the stage at commencement last week, he was met with cheers. Days earlier, Columbia acting President Claire Shipman was booed. The reactions may seem like campus drama – but they tell a deeper story about how two elite universities chose radically different paths in their battles with the Trump administration. One resisted federal pressure. The other largely complied. Now, those choices are reshaping national debates over who holds power on campus and what higher education should protect. The difference between the two commencements wasn’t just about who stood at the podium – it was about how each university chose to respond to the most aggressive federal pressure elite higher education has faced in a generation. Since taking office, the Trump administration has launched a full-scale campaign against student activists amid a broader ideological battle with colleges, threatening federal funding, student visas, institutional reputations and academic partnerships at schools it accused of tolerating antisemitism during campus pro-Palestinian protests. Both Harvard and Columbia became central targets – but they made very different choices. Columbia’s administration issued a public apology for its handling of protests on its campus months before Trump took office, disciplined students involved in protests and later took steps to cooperate with federal lawmakers once political pressure intensified. Harvard, in contrast, challenged the administration in court, worked to defend its autonomy and resisted demands to make major policy changes – even as the administration froze federal funds and intensified public attacks. “The contrast in leadership at the two schools could not have been more stark,” Catherine Ross, a law professor at George Washington University, told CNN. “Columbia’s leadership was unstable and indecisive; Harvard’s is strong and experienced.” Now, the fallout is playing out not just in courtrooms and congressional hearings, but on campus quads and graduation stages. Harvard’s defiance has drawn praise from many students and faculty, while Columbia’s concessions have sparked internal backlash, and deeper divisions. “When faced with a hostile government takeover, Columbia more or less rolled over,” said Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. “Harvard decided to fight — and by doing so, Harvard galvanized the larger academic community.” While Harvard’s larger endowment may have made it better positioned to clash with the federal government – also having seen how acquiescing early did not protect Columbia – the difference in their responses is notable, education experts say. Here’s how each university navigated the Trump administration’s mounting pressure – and what their decisions reveal about power, protest and the future of American higher education. Harvard stands its ground As the Trump administration froze billions in federal funds and demanded the university bow to its demands, Harvard pushed back. Garber, the university president, promised to defend the university’s right to free speech and maintain the school’s independence despite escalating threats. “Harvard is uniquely positioned to lead this fight on behalf of American higher education,” Ross said. “Its actions encourage and give permission to other schools to try to defend themselves.” When the Trump administration scrutinized Harvard’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, it argued the university had failed to prevent antisemitism and responded with a barrage of aggressive measures. The Department of Homeland Security last month temporarily revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, risking nearly 28% of the student body losing their visas. The administration also froze $2.2 billion in federal funding and $60 million in contracts after the Ivy League school refused to take steps including eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs, banning masks at protests, enacting merit-based hiring and admissions changes and reducing the power held by faculty and administrators “more committed to activism than scholarship.” “Using federal funding as a cudgel, the feds demanded control of Harvard’s core academic decision-making,” Creeley said. “The First Amendment bars the government from that kind of coercion.” Harvard openly criticized the administration’s demands and took the fight to court, challenging the administration’s attempts to control campus life. In launching legal challenges to block the funding freeze and visa threats, Harvard argued the government’s actions were unconstitutional attacks on free speech and academic freedom – rallying the public around the principle that federal officials shouldn’t dictate campus policies. Courts have so far sided with Harvard: A federal judge said Thursday she will order the Trump administration not to make any changes to Harvard’s student visa program indefinitely. But President Donald Trump later threw Harvard’s ability to enroll international students into doubt again on Wednesday when he signed a proclamation to suspend international visas for new students at Harvard. The funding freeze, meanwhile, is expected to remain in place as the case plays out in court this summer. “Fighting this requires a deep pocket – like Harvard’s endowment – a strong reputation to get public attention and a lot of courage,” Ross said. Meanwhile, Harvard settled two Title VI lawsuits alleging tolerance of antisemitism on campus. As part of the settlement, Harvard implemented several changes, including adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and hiring a point person to consult with on antisemitism complaints. The university’s defiance earned Harvard support from many faculty and students, who rallied behind the institution’s stance on free expression and academic freedom. Its resistance became a symbol of what it looks like to defend institutional autonomy in an era of political targeting, experts say. “We are all very proud of the administration for the way it has stood up against the Trump administration – and stood strong,” sophomore Caleb Thompson, co-president of the Harvard Undergraduate Association, told CNN. There have been some concessions by Harvard that drew criticism. Harvard said it turned over data to the Department of Homeland Security in response to the agency’s request for information on the illegal activity and disciplinary records of international students – data the agency later called insufficient before attempting to strip the university of its ability to host international students, according to the lawsuit by the university. Last month, the university also made a symbolic bow to White House demands, renaming its diversity, equity and inclusion office. Even if the university wins its legal battles, Harvard faces existential risks. By the time its fight for survival is resolved, the cost to Harvard in lost research and missing generations of students could be immense. Dr. David Walt, a pioneering scientist whose research helped significantly lower the costs of DNA sequencing, told CNN the funding freeze would undoubtedly “cost lives.” Still, experts say it may discourage similar actions by the Trump administration against other schools. While Harvard’s approach was not without risks – frozen grants impacting key research operations, visa uncertainties and threats to its tax-exempt status – the university’s refusal to yield sent a powerful message: it would not allow the federal government to dictate its values, higher education experts say. Columbia moves toward compliance Columbia University faced the same protests and political scrutiny that Harvard did, but chose a markedly different path. In disciplining students and cooperating with the federal government, Columbia hoped to reduce federal scrutiny, experts say. The moves sparked backlash from students and faculty who accused the university of capitulating to the administration’s demands. They also apparently didn’t go far enough to stave off funding cuts and threats to the university’s accreditation. The Trump administration revoked $400 million in federal funding to Columbia, citing the university’s alleged failure to address antisemitism during pro-Palestine protests. The administration demanded several policy changes, including a mask ban and a plan “for comprehensive admissions reform.” In response, Columbia University announced a series of new policies, including restrictions on demonstrations, new disciplinary procedures and a review of its Middle East curriculum, as Armstrong warned losing federal funds would impact the university’s critical functions. But the administration did not return the funds, and later went on to declare the school doesn’t meet accreditation standards because it allegedly violated the Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish students. “Columbia erred by failing to demand that the government proceed according to government law and procedures,” Ross said. Title VI requires due process, investigation, congressional approval before funds are withheld and an opportunity for the school to respond, and withholding funds must be limited to the parts of the university that investigation found had violated the law, according to Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. To cut off funds for a hostile environment against Jewish students, there would have to be a finding of “deliberate indifference” on Columbia’s part. In addition to policy changes, Columbia provided conduct reports, email correspondence and investigative reports related to campus protests to federal investigators amid a probe into the university’s compliance with federal civil rights laws, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The university also turned over some disciplinary records for students involved in demonstrations following a congressional request, but said it scrubbed them of identifying information, court records show. “A number of the actions Columbia agreed to could well have been taken …earlier and without government intervention, but Columbia should not have allowed the US to interfere in the university’s internal policy and decision-making,” Ross said. The university hoped cooperation would temper federal backlash and protect federal funding, experts say. But the response on campus was fierce. Some students and faculty accused the administration of betraying the university community, prioritizing politics over student rights. The policy changes and enforcement actions were seen by critics as Columbia bowing to the administration’s demands, rather than standing up for the values of free speech and academic freedom. “The mood at Columbia is still pretty dim – we are not too happy with the circumstances in which we find ourselves,” said a member of the Columbia University Senate who requested anonymity to be able to speak freely. “There’s a lot of broad distrust and disappointment in our leadership by recent moves and the way we’ve responded to these issues.” “At least with Harvard, they’re getting legal victories,” the member of the 111-member policy making body told CNN. “We’ve made a short-term calculation.” Shipman, the acting president, said in April that the university has not reached an agreement with the Trump administration and noted that while some of the government’s requests align with university policies, “overly prescriptive requests about our governance, how we conduct our presidential search process, and how specifically to address viewpoint diversity issues are not subject to negotiation.” She said the university would reject “heavy-handed orchestration from the government.” But the university’s leadership may not be able to reach an agreement with the government and has “made itself deeply unpopular with students” by collaborating with the Trump administration, Columbia math professor Michael Thaddeus told CNN. “The breadth and ferocity of Trump’s attacks on higher education make it clear that he simply wants to do as much damage as possible,” he said. “Given this reality, all universities, including Columbia, should be fighting back vigorously, using all tools at our disposal, even as we recognize how difficult our circumstances really are.” In the interim, anxiety has spread among students and faculty members on visas or green cards, along with those in the lab sciences impacted by cuts in research funding, according to Thaddeus. Despite these tensions, Columbia avoided some of the harshest financial penalties that hit Harvard. Still, many in the university community believe the toll to its reputation and internal fractures have cost the school more, according to the Columbia University Senate member. Two approaches, one reckoning for higher education Harvard’s defiance and Columbia’s cooperation reveal two contrasting strategies for navigating the Trump administration’s intense scrutiny. Columbia has been “very bad … but they’re working with us on finding a solution and they’re taken off that hot seat,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday. “But Harvard wants to fight, they want to show how smart they are.” By choosing to fight, Harvard accepted short-term risks to defend academic freedom in the long term, experts say, while Columbia opted to cooperate in hopes of safeguarding funding and avoiding harsher penalties. While each tried to protect their institutions, their experiences have sparked discussions about what leadership looks like when universities become flashpoints in national culture wars. The two universities have become easy targets for the administration because the institutions have lost public trust among Americans, Creeley said. But for the Trump administration, Harvard is a more useful target than Columbia. “For President Trump’s constituents, Harvard epitomizes elitism, snobbery and lack of support for American values,” said Benjamin Ginsberg, chair of the Center for Advanced Governmental Studies at Johns Hopkins University. “For Trump, a victory over Harvard is meaningful while defeating Columbia is less important.” To that end, the government’s actions against Harvard have been more extreme, persistent and seem aimed at destroying the institution, Ross said. Among many reasons for the universities’ differing responses: Columbia’s battle with the government came first, so Harvard saw that acquiescing early on did not protect the university from further demands and interference, experts say. “Columbia’s efforts to work in good faith with the administration made clear to every college and university the simple fact that this administration isn’t interested in addressing antisemitism or working towards good policy,” said Jon Fansmith, the assistant vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education. “They want to harm and control schools.” Another reason is that Columbia is much more vulnerable than Harvard to pressure from the government because it receives more in government contract and grant dollars and has a smaller endowment, according to Ginsberg. The internal politics of the two universities are also different, with the Columbia board inclined to settle matters with the administration, while some members of the Harvard board – most notably chair Penny Pritzker – favor resistance, Ginsberg said. Together, the responses beg a broader question facing US universities: how to balance political pressures with commitments to free expression and institutional independence. “If universities like Harvard and Columbia don’t stand up for their First Amendment rights as private institutions to make decisions for themselves, then they have failed us,” Creeley said. The cheers at Harvard’s graduation and the boos at Columbia’s say less about the leaders themselves and more about what their schools chose to stand for – reflecting fundamental debates about the future of higher education in a deeply polarized era.