More stories

  • in

    Harvard May Not Be the Hero We Want, but It Is the Hero We Need

    Like many of its conservative alumni, I have a complicated relationship with Harvard.I grew up in a small town in Kentucky, where I went to public school. I attended college at a small Christian university in Nashville. I never had a thought that I could attend Harvard Law School. But friends urged me to try.When I got in, it was so shocking that it felt miraculous. I knew it would change my life — and it did. It gave me some of my closest friends, it gave me career opportunities I couldn’t previously fathom, and it kindled in me a love for constitutional law.At the same time, the school had profound problems. The student culture was remarkably intolerant and contentious. This was the height of early 1990s political correctness, and I was sometimes shouted down by angry classmates.In 1993, GQ published a long report from the law school called “Beirut on the Charles,” and it described a place that “pitted faculty members against faculty members, faculty members against students” and where students were “waging holy war on one another.”The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. In the 30 years since my graduation, the school has continued to change lives, and it has maintained one of the least tolerant cultures in American higher education.For the second year in a row, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression (where I served as president a number of years ago) has ranked Harvard last in the country in its annual free speech rankings. The environment, FIRE determined, was “abysmal.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    International Students Worry Even as Trump Temporarily Restores Some Legal Statuses

    Students and their immigration lawyers say they were relieved for the temporary reprieve, but emphasized that it was just that — temporary.When Karl Molden, a sophomore at Harvard University from Vienna, learned that the Trump administration had abruptly restored thousands of international students’ ability to legally study in the United States, he said he did not feel reassured.After all, immigration officials have insisted that they could still terminate students’ legal status, even in the face of legal challenges, and the administration has characterized the matter as only a temporary reprieve.“They shouldn’t tempt us into thinking that the administration will stop harassing us,” Mr. Molden said. “They will try to find other ways.”Mr. Molden is not alone in his worry.The dramatic shift from the administration on Friday came after scores of international students filed lawsuits saying that their legal right to study in the United States had been rescinded, often with minimal explanation. In some cases, students had minor traffic violations or other infractions. In others, there appeared to be no obvious reason for the revocations.After learning that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had deleted their records from the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, many students sued to try to save their status. That prompted a flurry of emergency orders by judges that blocked the changes.Students and their immigration lawyers said on Saturday that they were relieved for the temporary reprieve, but emphasized that it was just that — temporary.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Cornell Cancels Kehlani Performance Over Her Stance on the War in Gaza

    The R&B singer’s outspoken support for Palestinians had drawn criticism on the campus and beyond. Some students expressed disappointment at the cancellation.Cornell University dropped a popular R&B singer from its annual campus concert over what the school’s president said were antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiments she had espoused.The singer, Kehlani, has been an outspoken opponent of Israel’s war in Gaza, speaking out at concerts and on social media. In a 2024 music video for the song “Next 2 U,” Kehlani danced in a jacket adorned with kaffiyehs as dancers waved Palestinian flags in the background. During the video’s introduction, the phrase “Long Live the Intifada” appeared against a dark background.Furor over the singer’s selection spread across Cornell’s campus and beyond after the school announced the lineup for the concert, an annual celebration called Slope Day that follows the last day of classes. The Ivy League university is among dozens being investigated by the White House over allegations of antisemitism, part of the Trump administration’s targeting of universities. Earlier this month, the White House froze $1 billion in funding for Cornell.Cornell’s president, Michael I. Kotlikoff, wrote in an email on Wednesday that “although it was not the intention, the selection of Kehlani as this year’s headliner has injected division and discord” into the event.“In the days since Kehlani was announced, I have heard grave concerns from our community that many are angry, hurt and confused that Slope Day would feature a performer who has espoused antisemitic, anti-Israel sentiments in performances, videos and on social media,” he wrote.The protests over the war in Gaza have exposed broad disagreement about when criticism of Israel veers into antisemitic behavior. To some, the word “intifada,” which translates into rebellion or uprising, implies a call for violence against Israelis and Jews. But some pro-Palestinian demonstrators who use the term in chants regard it as a cry for liberation and freedom from oppression.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting College Accreditors

    President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order targeting college accreditors, a group of largely unknown but long-established companies that evaluate the educational quality and financial health of universities.The order, one of seven education-related measures he signed on Wednesday, was the latest move by Mr. Trump aimed at shifting the ideological tilt of the higher education system, which he views as hostile to conservatives. His administration has escalated its fight with elite universities in recent weeks, demanding significant changes to hiring, admissions and curriculum practices. At least one, Harvard, has chosen to fight back, setting up a billion-dollar battle for academic independence.A passing grade from accreditation companies, some of which have existed for more than a century, is crucial for colleges to gain access to $120 billion in federal financial aid approved each year. But Mr. Trump has blamed these businesses for promoting the kind of diversity, equity and inclusion policies that his administration has made a priority to stamp out.During his last presidential campaign, Mr. Trump did not speak often about accreditors, which have long been a target of conservative Republicans. But when he did, he reserved some of his most biting attacks for them. In a policy video he posted in the summer of 2023, he vowed to take aim at “radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.”Mr. Trump’s order would make it easier for schools to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal approval, according to the White House, which provided fact sheets about the measures. The text of the orders was not immediately available.Bob Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a liberal think tank that studies college accreditation policy, among other things, said that Mr. Trump’s order would undermine institutional independence, which, he said, “has helped our universities to be the best in the world.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Indiana Evangelicals Are Focusing on Creation Care With Environmental Work

    The solar panels on the churches were inspired by Scripture.So were the LED lights throughout the buildings, the electric-vehicle charging stations, the native pollinator gardens and organic food plots, the composting, the focus on consuming less and reusing more.The evangelical Christians behind these efforts in Indiana say that by taking on this planet-healing work, they are following the biblical mandate to care for God’s creation.50 States, 50 Fixes is a series about local solutions to environmental problems. More to come this year.“It’s a quiet movement,” said the Rev. Jeremy Summers, director of church and community engagement for the Evangelical Environmental Network, a nonprofit group with projects nationwide.In Central Indiana, a patchwork of evangelical churches and universities has been sharing ideas and lessons on how to expand these efforts, broadly known as creation care. Some have partnered on an Earth Day-like celebration they named Indy Creation Fest.Tell Us About Solutions Where You Live More

  • in

    In Trump Attack on Harvard, Punishment Before Proof

    The legal underpinnings of the administration’s broadsides against universities and schools stretch precedents and cut corners.In the White House’s campaign against Harvard University, the punishment came swiftly.The Trump administration has frozen $2.2 billion in grants to the school, while seeking to exert unprecedented control over hiring, impose unspecified reforms to its medical and divinity schools, block certain foreign students from enrolling and, potentially, revoke its tax-exempt status.It is a broadside with little precedent. And, as with the White House’s other attacks on universities, colleges and even K-12 schools, the legal justifications have been muddled, stretched and, in some instances, impossible to determine.“It’s punishment before a trial, punishment before evidence, punishment before an actual accusation that could be responded to,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and the U.S. Department of Education’s third-ranking official during the Obama administration. “People talk about why higher ed hasn’t responded. Well, how can you fight a shadow in this way?​”The legality of each threat varies. In more typical times, some of the individual punishments might be validated by lengthy investigations in which a university would have a right to defend itself.But taken together, law professors and education experts said, the immediacy of the sanctions and threats conveyed an unmistakable hostility toward Harvard and other schools in the president’s sights. The broad vendetta, they said, could weaken the legal argument for each individual action.“You can’t make decisions — even if you have the power to do so — on the basis of animus,” said Brian Galle, a Georgetown University law professor who teaches about taxation policy and nonprofit organizations. “Those aren’t permissible reasons that the government can act. And so what’s interesting about the fact that it’s doing all of these things to Harvard at the same time, is that undermines the legitimacy of each of them individually.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Officials Blame Mistake for Setting Off Confrontation With Harvard

    An official on the administration’s antisemitism task force told the university that a letter of demands had been sent without authorization.Harvard University received an emailed letter from the Trump administration last Friday that included a series of demands about hiring, admissions and curriculum so onerous that school officials decided they had no choice but to take on the White House.The university announced its intentions on Monday, setting off a tectonic battle between one of the country’s most prestigious universities and a U.S. president. Then, almost immediately, came a frantic call from a Trump official.The April 11 letter from the White House’s task force on antisemitism, this official told Harvard, should not have been sent and was “unauthorized,” two people familiar with the matter said.The letter was sent by the acting general counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sean Keveney, according to three other people, who were briefed on the matter. Mr. Keveney is a member of the antisemitism task force.It is unclear what prompted the letter to be sent last Friday. Its content was authentic, the three people said, but there were differing accounts inside the administration of how it had been mishandled. Some people at the White House believed it had been sent prematurely, according to the three people, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal discussions. Others in the administration thought it had been meant to be circulated among the task force members rather than sent to Harvard.But its timing was consequential. The letter arrived when Harvard officials believed they could still avert a confrontation with President Trump. Over the previous two weeks, Harvard and the task force had engaged in a dialogue. But the letter’s demands were so extreme that Harvard concluded that a deal would ultimately be impossible.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Ex-Harvard Medical School Morgue Chief to Plead Guilty in Sale of Body Parts

    Cedric Lodge stole organs from cadavers that had been donated for medical research, prosecutors said. The university fired him in 2023.A former manager of the morgue at Harvard Medical School will plead guilty to stealing body parts that had been donated for research and selling them for thousands of dollars to people who collected them as macabre curiosities, according to court documents.The supervisor, Cedric Lodge, 57, who was fired by the university in 2023, had been entrusted with handling cadavers that were part of the medical school’s Anatomical Gift Program and were supposed to be cremated after the research on them had been completed, prosecutors said.But according to a sweeping federal investigation, Mr. Lodge turned the morgue into a shopping emporium for brains, skin and other body parts, supplying them to collectors in several states as part of a criminal network that involved several people, including his wife. Investigators said he drove the stolen body parts to his home in New Hampshire.The breach went undetected from about 2018 until March 2023, tainting one of the nation’s most prestigious medical schools.In a filing on Wednesday in federal court in Pennsylvania, Mr. Lodge agreed that he would plead guilty to one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. Under the plea deal, he will no longer face a conspiracy charge. Prosecutors recommended that he receive less than the maximum sentence, but a judge will make the final decision.In a statement on Friday, Dr. George Q. Daley, the dean of Harvard Medical School, condemned Mr. Lodge’s misconduct.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More