Degrees of freedom? Harvard’s shakedown dilemma

0:00Sibo offers solutions across the entire trade lifecycle. We offer pre-trade analytics for our clients to help them with idea generation during trading with platforms such as Silex to execute their orders on the exchanges globally, as well as post-trade analytics to really help them with their risk management and portfolio management. And often the biggest barrier to entry is integrating with their own technology. Learn more about DataVantage at SIBO.com slash DataVantage. Review important risk disclosures and disclaimers at SIBO.com slash US underscore disclaimers. When everything is moving all at once, your workforce, your tech stack, your business, you don't need more tools.

0:36You need one solution. That's why Paylocity built a single platform to connect HR, finance, and IT with AI-driven insights and automated workflows that simplify the complex and power what's next. Because when everything comes together in one place, growth comes easy. Experience one place for all your HCM needs. Start now at paylocity.com slash one.

1:27Our correspondents sit down with France's top general, who has some sobering views about the coming threats to Europe from Russia and how nuclear deterrence fits in. And it's really hard to do political satire in what historians will one day call the age of Trump. It assumes a reality that's not already parody. Our culture correspondent says that these days it's not the usual cast of sniffy liberals who are doing it best.

2:04But first...

2:11In October of 2023, soon after the start of war in Gaza, many American students made their views clear from encampments and sit-ins across the country. Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine! Free, free Palestine! Long story short, that started a broad conversation about campus ideology that's still going. In December of that year, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania were grilled at a congressional hearing. The anti-Semitism we've seen on your campuses didn't come out of nowhere. There are cultures at your institutions that foster it. What is it about the way that you hire faculty and approve curriculum that's allowing your campuses to be infected by this intellectual and moral rot?

3:03Donald Trump has taken up this fight in a big way. Back in May, we covered his withholding of$3 billion worth of Harvard's federal funding. A couple of weeks ago, Columbia University announced a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than$220 million to secure its ration of federal dollars. Now, it looks like Harvard might well follow suit. In April, the Trump administration sent Harvard a list of 10 demands. It basically wanted oversight over coursework and faculty hiring and admissions. Kenneth Werner is our deputy culture editor. Harvard said, no, this was a non-starter. And then in response to that, the Trump administration froze$3 billion worth of federal funds to Harvard for research.

3:49and it tried to stop Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Harvard sued over those two moves, but now it's considering settling. Within the Ivy League, the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, and Columbia have all settled. And there was a report in the New York Times that now Harvard is thinking of paying as much as half a billion dollars to the Trump administration to resolve this whole conflict.

4:14Which, if it's to recover access to$3 billion in grants, I suppose it's an all right bet. Yeah, so it's worth maybe thinking about why Harvard shouldn't settle. And there are a lot of reasons for that. One is just the precedent that this sets. What Trump is trying to do is really meddle in the affairs of a private institution. And Harvard has been around for centuries and it will long outlast Trump. Another aspect is that the way Trump has gone about this, he's disregarded the lawful procedures by which you can pull funds from an institution. But then there's a big reason for Harvard to end this dispute because the pain is really acute.

4:52Federal research funding makes up 10 % of Harvard's budget. And so losing that would really erode its research capacity. It has a$53 billion endowment. It should be able to rely on that to plug some of this gap. But there are issues there too. There are restrictions about how much Harvard can withdraw from its endowment. And then if you are eating up the principle of an endowment, eventually you're eroding the income. And so there's longer term concerns with that too. Well, what about the lawsuit ends of things? Is Harvard getting any hope of judicial relief from all this? In terms of litigation, Harvard has had success so far.

5:29A district court judge put a temporary restraining order on Trump's attempts to bar foreign students. But that was just the first stage in a long litigation process. And ultimately, these questions will be resolved by the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority. So Harvard can't bank on a favorable outcome in a year or two or three when it comes before the Supreme Court. And what's been going on in the meantime? I mean, we covered the protests at Harvard back in May. What's it been like on the ground? What's changed already? Yeah, so the pain has been felt already. I mean, it's really not trivial.

6:03Harvard has implemented some hiring freezes. They've had to lay off some research staff. And there are more threats. Elise Stefanik, who's a Republican congresswoman, has suggested that when Harvard issued a bond in April and it failed to disclose initially to investors that it had gotten these demands from the government, that this failure of disclosure constituted a securities fraud and she wants an investigation there. The IRS is thinking about pulling Harvard's tax-exempt status. The Department of Homeland Security has subpoenaed Harvard for records about foreign students who participated in pro-Palestine protests.

6:42And there are many more of these sort of attacks that Harvard has to deal with. And it's frankly really exhausting for the university. It's just unending. So in that sense, pardon the phrase, but this full court press suggests that Harvard really probably ought to take a settlement, make a deal. So Harvard faculty, students, and alumni, they've been really proud of Harvard's president, Alan Garber, for resisting the Trump administration and for suing twice. Alan Garber, he's reportedly denied that Harvard would ever pay as much as half a billion dollars to the government to settle this. And he's also laid out some of the red lines that the university has in its negotiations.

7:18One of those is no infringement on academic freedom. There's no way that Harvard would allow the government to decide what it can teach, what it can research, whom it can hire or admit on campus. And reportedly, Alan Garber has also said that Harvard won't accept an outside monitor to ensure its compliance with any deal. But there's some indication that Harvard might settle this. The voices calling for a settlement on campus are increasing in number. You find this perspective represented most strongly among faculty in science and in medicine because they have the most to lose, given that a lot of their research is funded by the government.

7:54And so if you think about what a deal between Harvard and the government could look like, Columbia's settlement is probably the best roadmap. That university agreed to pay$221 million to the government. And in exchange for that, it got most of its federal funding restored and some government investigations into alleged civil rights violations on campus were closed. But then Columbia also had to greet a number of concessions. It agreed to hire a provost who will review the curriculums at some Middle Eastern studies centers and programs on campus. It agreed to hire some faculty with a specialty in Israel or Judaism.

8:29And it agreed to hire a number of campus police officers. And finally, it agreed to an outside monitor who will ensure its compliance with the settlement. And has Harvard done any of those structural changes that the government was leaning on them for? Or was it just simply a big fat no from the president and nothing since? Harvard has been doing a lot on campus to resolve some of the Trump administration's concerns. In January, it settled to lawsuits with Jewish students who had alleged civil rights violations over antisemitism. Harvard adopted the government's preferred definition of antisemitism.

9:05It ended a partnership with a university in the West Bank. It suspended a Palestinian student activist organization on campus. It removed the leadership of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies there. And then it also has renamed and consolidated its DEI offices. You start to wonder when you hear these kinds of concessions, what the actual goal of the administration is? I mean, in your opinion, is this just about bringing universities to heel? Is this quashing left of center wrong think? Is this giving a greater voice to conservatives within the education establishment? What do you reckon? Anti-Semitism was sort of the justification and arguably a pretext to launch this huge attack.

9:48But really, Trump and conservatives are upset by what they see as universities as hubs of left-wing resistance. And so they want to bring that to heel. And there is truth in the fact that Harvard and the Ivy League is ideologically skewed towards the left. There was a poll in the student newspaper at Harvard a few years ago in which less than 3 % of faculty reported themselves as being conservative. To not have those perspectives represented on campus doesn't serve Harvard's mission, which is to educate its students and to expose them to different views. So people at Harvard recognize that this is a problem and want to correct it.

10:26A big dramatic gesture, a settlement, an order from Trump is not going to fix that. This is a long-term problem that Harvard is grappling with and it now is really thinking about this seriously. There is a concern about implementation and compliance and what happens if Harvard settles and then Trump moves the goalposts. That will be worse than if Harvard hadn't settled at all. But Trump does have a way of striking a deal and moving on. His favorite thing is to make a deal and brag about it. So Harvard could also recognize that and just say, okay, this is going to be painful. It's going to be embarrassing.

11:00It's going to be a very difficult pill to swallow. But Harvard's leadership may think that this is the only way to move on. Kenneth, thanks very much for your time. Thanks, Jason.

11:45Transcription by CastingWords Review important risk disclosures and disclaimers at SIBO.com.

12:00Back in March, I sat down with Sophie Petter, our Paris Bureau Chief, and Shashank Joshi, our Defense Editor, to discuss an interview they'd done with one of NATO's top brass, Pierre Vendier, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. In that conversation, Admiral Vendier sounded the alarm about European security in the face of a direct Russian threat. A few months on, and the EU has proposed plans to boost defense spending, and talks are underway about what a new European security alliance might look like. Now, Sophie and Chachank have spoken to someone right at the heart of those negotiations, France's top general, Thierry Burghardt.

12:41Sophie, to start, what is Thierry Burkhardt like? I met him at the office of the Armed Forces headquarters in Paris. It's a building in the south of the city known as the Hexagon. And Chashank joined us online. He's been in this role since 2021, in fact. And we spoke to him back then before Russia invaded Ukraine. And he had told us Europe had to prepare for a high-intensity war and for a more dangerous world. Now, the general is approaching the end of his term. So in a sense, this was sort of his valedictory interview. He's also straight from central casting, isn't he, Sophie? He's tall. He's a former paratrooper with a buzz cut.

13:18What you'd expect from a French general. And Shashank, for you, what was the take-home message, the main message during the conversation? I think it was his justification of an assessment he gave a few days before our interview that he thought the threat from Russia is something that would materialise within five years.

13:42He said that by 2030, Russia will possess the means once again to pose a military threat to Western countries and European countries in particular. And what he meant by that is rebuilding its military capabilities, threatening another European country. And that timeline, that's at the lower end of many of the other assessments that you see in other parts of Europe from spy chiefs and military chiefs. I think it's dangerous because the people of the Russian people are to endure. He also said the ability of the Russian people to endure means that Europe has to be ready for Russia lasting five minutes longer than us.

14:22The idea they might be battered and bruised in Ukraine, but they still had endurance on their side. And for you, Sophie, especially given the prophetic nature of what he told you in 2021, did anything surprise you about what he said this time around? Well, one thing that struck me, he was relatively optimistic, I would say, about the willingness of America to remain engaged in Europe. It reminded me a little of the conversation we'd had with Admiral Vendier. He also played down the risk of a complete rupture in transatlantic military relations. Je pense que les Américains ne quitteront pas l 'Europe.

15:00General Birka does not think that the Americans will leave Europe altogether. He did concede that they might reduce their military presence. Where he was optimistic again was about the bilateral ties between big players in Western Europe. And by that, he means France and the UK, who signed a recent deal between Germany and the UK equally. He thinks that it's the beginning of an illustration of what a European pillar of NATO could be. And let's stick there for a moment, Shashank. I know we've spoken with you a lot about the shifting security posture in Europe. Did General Burkhardt say what he thinks that might look like in the longer run?

15:40Well, I think the implication was it looked very different to the US-led order that's prevailed for 80 years. And Jason, you and I have spoken about the fact that NATO in the last few years has written for the first time since the Cold War, these comprehensive regional defence plans. and we've also talked about the fact that pretty much all European allies are very far from meeting the targets that are implied in those plans, whether that's numbers of soldiers or numbers of artillery guns. American retrenchment from the continent would make that gap worse. His argument was that Europe should not, cannot emulate America's approach to war.

16:17He basically thinks European armies has to do more with less, take more risks by being more manoeuvrable, as he put it. I think he was quite good at articulating this point about the changing economics of lethality. He said high-tech weapons are absolutely crucial. In fact, I think France just very recently announced it was reopening the production line for scalp cruise missiles, which have been used to good effect by Ukraine. These are very expensive missiles, very effective. But the point is, as he put it, you need cheap munitions to wear out the enemy. There was a line at Shashank which struck me and it was in response to one of the questions that You'd ask precisely about this, about the relationship between high tech and other forms of warfare.

17:01He said you need Ferraris from time to time, but you can't win a war with Ferraris. The point is, tactics are as important as technology. Victory goes to the side that will knit together ground drones, aerial drones, naval drones in some sort of coherent system, not just the side that has the best innovation, the best hardware, the best tech. And as regards how the club will club together in the shifting alliances and security posture from the European side, Sophie, this does sound a lot like what we heard from Admiral Vendier, that the alliance must work together. Simple as that. I mean, yes, up to a point.

17:38That's right, Jason. But I think what's interesting was the context of our conversation coming a few days after the UK and France having signed this joint declaration, which was very strong. It was a big strategic step for the two countries, which are Europe's only nuclear armed powers, to say that they will coordinate their nuclear deterrence. And the line they had, which was very strong and a very strong message both to Russia and to other adversaries, is that, quote, there is no extreme threat to Europe that would not prompt a response by our two nations. So the implication there is that both countries faced with an extreme threat would jointly respond.

18:18Now, we put that to General Birka. He's obviously not willing to go into the details of what conditions France and Britain would potentially jointly use their nuclear weapons. What he did say to us was that for him, it's the ability to deal with the current situation. So when a crisis happens, he said, to be able to exchange, to see what the threats are and what you need to be ready to do. Now, this is going to be the subject of a joint nuclear steering group between France and the UK. This is something quite new. Sophie, I don't know if you agree, but I thought this is so interesting because it's so distinctively French, right?

18:58It's the idea that ultimately it's nuclear weapons that provide the ultimate guarantee of deterrence. The general addressed this very directly. He said, if one day we are ever threatened by Russia, It's not a subject of conventional weapons. It's a subject of nuclear deterrence. I thought, what could be more French than that? That's so true, Chachank. I mean, whenever you talk to a military officer or a military official in France, ultimately, when it comes to protecting the country from any external threat, it always comes down to the nuclear deterrence. When you say that it's very French, I have to agree with you.

19:38Absolutely. Sophie Chachank, thanks as ever for joining us. Thank you very much, Jason. Thanks to both of you.

19:56Quick aside here, if you, like me, are often struck by the depth of analysis that Shishank provides. He's helped to develop a new course on international relations, organised by our sister company, Economist Education. It features senior editors and journalists from The Economist, and guest speakers from academia, business, and government. It's designed to help you act decisively, armed with insights into geopolitical challenges and how these will affect you and your organization. Time is running out to sign up. Last enrollment's tomorrow, and the course starts on Wednesday. And if you, like me, can't resist a good deal, get 15 % off with the code INTELLIGENCE.

20:34Just go to education.economist.com slash intelligence.

20:44The following segment contains fake headlines and comic impersonations of the 45th and 47th American president. It may cause irrational fury in overly sensitive leaders.

20:55After America's presidential election last year, a headline in The Onion, a liberal satirical paper, read, Trump calls Harris to congratulate himself on winning. Technically, this joke is almost perfect. It's pithy. It's eight words long, and one of the words elegantly subverts the other seven. But there's a problem. No one would be surprised if it were true. John Fasman is a senior culture correspondent for The Economist. Donald Trump is actually a real challenge for humorists. He should be easy to mock, but he's not. Here's the problem. Philip Roth, an American novelist, famously defines satire as moral outrage transformed into comic art.

21:39Satire is supposed to shame the target, but how does that work when the target is really shame-proof? Liberals often have a harder time mocking Trump than conservatives. That's partly because liberals are too angry. An excess of rage ruins satire. You need a scalpel, not a cudgel. And I think some of the satirists who are coping best with the second Trump term are conservatives who may have voted for him, but they acknowledge some of his gargantuan flaws. The Babylon Bee, for instance, it's a conservative paper, but it has had no problem poking fun at Trump when Trump merits mocking. Their readers probably voted for Mr.

22:16Trump, but they notice if he does things Jesus might frown at. For instance, when Trump posted an AI-generated picture of himself as the Pope, the Bee mocked his presumption by suggesting several changes he might make if he was in fact the Pope, and these included painting his own face over Adams in the Sistine Chapel and issuing more macho papal decrees like Any saint who was martyred loses sainthood for being a wimp. Sad. On policy, the beeswriters probably sympathize more with Donald Trump than with Democrats, but they skewer his capriciousness. President Trump draws names of countries from hat to determine next tariff.

22:56One story reports him ordering the removal of black pieces from all chess sets. These pieces are removed behind every other piece on the set. Absolutely failing. Clearly DEI hires and we need to fire them. Democrats who wonder why slightly more than half the country dislikes them could usefully spend time perusing the bee. It flays their tiresome sanctimony. Disaster. Liberal goes back in time to kill Hitler, but now has no one to compare people he disagrees with to. The Babylon Bee also offers a handy gauge of disagreements and tensions within the MAGA movement, for instance, over Jeffrey Epstein.