Universities have always been, as Karl Jaspers well observed, mirrors of the entire public sphere. Academic institutions, the German author believed, reflect the health of the public sphere - he believed that they are a kind of microcosm of the wider society, spaces for dialogue on a rational and argumentative basis, and as such represent the greatest social potential for resistance to dominant political narratives and authoritarian tendencies.
US President Donald Trump began his academic journey at Fordham University in New York, and after two years transferred to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated with a degree in economics in 1968. During his studies, his former professors say, he focused mostly on commerce and real estate, which is entirely logical considering his family pedigree. He avoided student activism on campus, was reportedly a frequent absentee, and was always eloquent and liked to engage in debates with professors.
“I was the best student”, “I am, therefore, a really smart person”, “I know words, I have the best words”, “I am a very intelligent person” - with these and similar words, Trump recalled his academic journey in which, according to his self-reflection, he was the protagonist. However, there is still a difference between perception and fact, and so the best of all students Trump, through his legal representatives, defended the educational institutions he attended and where he was fed with knowledge - the Latin name “alma mater” and indicates that universities provide educational food to their students - from informing the public about the fact that the eternal protagonist Donald was a completely average student. The memories of former colleagues about the student Donald also vary: most agree that he was always well-dressed, a sports fan, a bit distant, while others point out that he was quite stingy and reserved. Although a great fan of sports and athletic build, he nevertheless avoided being drafted and going to the war in Vietnam due to a no less painful heel. Colloquially called a thorn in the heel, technically it is a type of plantar fascitis, he did not allow Donald to end up in the Vietnamese rainforests, and he was exempted from military service. In the 2018 series, The New York Times will show how, quite predictably, it was a false diagnosis.
Donald Trump didn't end up in Vietnam, but he didn't end up at Harvard, which many consider to be the most prestigious and elite educational institution in the United States, either. Trump biographer Michael Wolff pointed out in a recent podcast that the US president was rejected by Harvard and that the reasons for his current vendetta against the prestigious institution should be sought precisely in that, for Trump, unpleasant event. The White House has neither confirmed nor denied the position of publicist Wolff, whom it has equated with feces in previous (semi-)official statements - we are thinking of that of Steven Cheung, the communications director.
The months-long conflict between the administration of US President Trump and the largest American universities such as Harvard has entered an unusual phase. Trump is striking where almost all universities are most vulnerable, both financially and with students. He has frozen almost $3,2 billion in federal grants to Harvard, which are one of the key sources of funding for research, education and infrastructure. Although it is a matter of billions, truth be told, it is only a small part of the financial pie of the richest educational institution in the world. The Harvard University Foundation, which is managed by an investment management company, is the largest academic foundation in the world, managing around $53,2 billion. However, financially speaking, Harvard is relatively conservative: they do not engage in risky investments, so they generate income of around $2,4 billion from the foundation, and the rest of the operating income, which amounts to $2024 billion in 6,5, is channeled into donations, scholarships and similar activities.
It is not unreasonable to assume that Trump is irritated by Harvard's elitism, independence, and symbolism, and when we add to that equation his desire to wage culture wars, then the current conflict seems almost inevitable. Harvard, a pioneer in many educational initiatives, founded the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations in 1981, which would later grow into the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) program. The ideas behind it are that university students are different and that they should all be included in society in order to benefit the American nation. Such programs had a positive effect on reducing historical injustices - Harvard opened itself to marginalized and underprivileged populations - and later the emphasis would be placed on identity and woke issues, issues of racial justice, and intercultural dialogue. Trump believes that certain groups receive preferential treatment through them, rather than merit-based, meritocracy-based treatment. His administration will reduce quotas for foreign students, abolish student visas, especially for those from China, publicly labeling them as a possible threat to national security.
Although the administration and Harvard are at loggerheads, the flagship of American education has made some accommodations and visible concessions: it modified and changed the name of the DEI program, and, in response to accusations of anti-Semitism, torpedoed several directors of important institutes. It seems that even the super-autonomous Harvard has adapted to the Trump administration, confirming the idea that universities are a mirror of the entire public sphere. The conflict between Trump and Harvard, partly personal, partly institutional, shows a worrying tendency to diminish the critical potential of the educational system and to reduce resistance to dominant political narratives and authoritarian tendencies, even at prestigious academic addresses whose autonomy is guaranteed by a portfolio measured in billions of dollars, like Harvard.
Bonus video:
