The Harvard Crimson - Vol. CLII, No. 8

The Harvard Crimson

ULTIMATUM FOR HARVARD

Trump Tells Harvard To End DEI, Restrict Protests To Keep Funding

BY DHRUV T. PATEL AND

The Trump administration demanded on Thursday that Harvard eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming and ban masks at protests to avoid losing its federal funding, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Crimson.

In a Thursday afternoon letter addressed to Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and Harvard Corporation senior fellow Penny S. Pritkzer ’81, the White House called on Harvard to “make meaningful governance reforms” and install leaders who will help implement the demands outlined in the letter.

But the White House did not give Harvard a timeline to accept the demands, only asking the University for “immediate cooperation” in rolling out the changes.

A Harvard spokesperson confirmed that the University

had received the letter.

The letter, which came three days after three federal agencies pledged to review nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to Harvard and affiliated institutions, asked Harvard to review and alter programs it accused of fueling antisemitism. It did not name the programs in question.

In the last week, Harvard has ousted personnel at its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, suspended programming focused on Israel and Palestine at the Harvard Divinity School, and terminated its partnership with the oldest university in the West Bank.

The letter also demanded that Harvard “commit to full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal regulators and “make organizational changes as necessary to enable full compliance.”

The letter also demanded that Harvard reject race- and gender-based preferences in

hiring and replace them with a “merit-based” system — and asked the University to “demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.”

The Thursday letter will force the University to navigate between the Trump administration’s demands and increasing pressure from faculty members to resist yielding to the White House.

One week ago, more than 600 Harvard faculty members called on Harvard’s governing boards to publicly condemn the Trump administration’s attacks on universities and defy its demands. A protest outside University Hall on Tuesday — which drew roughly 300 attendees — urged Harvard to resist demands from the Trump administration.

The Trump administration’s demands were first reported by Fox News Digital.

dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com grace,yoon@thecrimson.com

Hoekstra Stands Behind Middle Eastern Studies Dismissals

BY WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra stood by the decision to dismiss the director and associate director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies last week at a Tuesday FAS meeting.

The dismissals — which the directors have told their colleagues were because of the center’s programming on Palestine — were condemned by some faculty and students as infringing on academic freedom, including at a protest outside University Hall during Tuesday’s meeting.

“I am confident that this was the right decision,” Hoekstra said. “While I appreciate that the external environment makes a decision like this one especially hard, it should never prevent us from addressing the needs of our academic units.” Hoekstra’s response — ad -

dressed to a Faculty Room so packed that at least 20 professors were left standing — left some attendees incredulous. Government professor Ryan D. Enos said he was not convinced that the dismissals weren’t an attempt to appease the Trump administration before officials pull Harvard’s funding. He said the timing of the CMES dismissals, which came within days of a University announcement that it was severing its ties with Birzeit University in the West Bank, was “a coincidence that’s really hard to believe.”

The questioning — which, at one point, left Hoekstra grasping for an appropriate answer — came days after Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 fended off a similar query at a meeting of department chairs on Thursday.

History chair Sidney Chalhoub said at the meeting that Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 told chairs that he did not know details about the dismissals.

“I don’t know what to say about the President’s claim that he does not know the details of a serious attack on academic freedom carried out by his own administration,” Chalhoub told the room. “Since President Garber seems to have deflected responsibility to the lower echelons of his administration, then I now address the question to Dean Hoekstra.” Hoekstra said she took issue with the characterization of the dismissals and that she valued strong management abilities and intellectual diversity at centers.

“As I’ve repeatedly said, for me, academic freedom is a red line. It is a necessary condition for the work we do at this University,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have standards and rigor, and it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have conversations about how to best enable different perspectives.”

SEE PAGE 4

Claybaugh, Deming Interviewed for College Dean As Search Nears Close

Hoekstra in her search for the next College dean. The committee was formed after outgoing College Dean Rakesh Khurana announced in August that he would step down at the end of the academic year.

nal stages of the process — but before then-FAS Dean Michael D. Smith named his chosen candidate for review by members of Harvard’s governing boards. Candidates were interviewed at least twice.

At least two candidates — Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh and Harvard Kennedy School professor David J. Deming — have interviewed to be the next Harvard College dean, according to three people familiar with the matter. Each of the two candidates was interviewed by members of a 10-person faculty committee tapped to advise Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E.

The Crimson was not able to determine whether other candidates were interviewed. A Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Claybaugh and Deming did not respond to requests for comment. In the search that selected Khurana, which concluded in 2014, interviews with the advisory committee came in the fi-

Hoekstra has provided no public updates on the search since she and the committee solicited input from Harvard affiliates last fall, though an announcement is expected very soon, according to one person familiar with the search. Both candidates bring both familiarity with administrative positions and experience working with undergraduates.

Claybaugh, an English professor, has taught at Harvard since 2010. As dean of undergraduate education, a role in which she oversees the undergraduate curriculum at Harvard, Claybaugh has positioned herself as a staunch proponent of academic rigor.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, she helped the College implement temporary changes in Harvard’s grading policy to deal with the unprecedented circumstances.

In her current position, Claybaugh also serves in the Dean’s Cabinet, which meets regularly to advise Khurana as he leads the

College. As an English professor, Claybaugh taught courses including the popular Humanities 10, has served as chair of the Committee on Degrees in History and Literature, and helped forward History and Literature’s ethnic studies track.

Deming, who serves as Kirkland House faculty dean in addition to his appointment at HKS, was an internal finalist in last spring’s HKS dean search. He stepped down from the dean search advisory committee to become a candidate but was passed over for the position, which went to Jeremy M. Weinstein — then a

Stanford professor — instead. From 2021 to 2024, Deming was the academic dean of HKS. He also holds a faculty appointment at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, but he does not hold a post in the FAS. Deming researches higher education, economic inequality, and the labor market, and Harvard cited his research on standardized test scores’ ability to predict college performance in its decision to end test-optional admissions.

THE IVIES

THE BROWN DAILY HERALD BROWN ADMINISTRATIONS CLARIFY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT POLICIES, ADDRESS RESEARCH FUNDING CUTS

commitments to diversity initiatives and student privacy.

A federal hiring freeze and funding cuts imposed

NEXT WEEK 3

What’s Next

Start every week with a preview of what’s on the agenda around Harvard University

WHERE TRUMP’S

TARIFFS

WILL HIT THE HARDEST

Last week, Trump imposed significant tariffs on the United States’ top trading partners. These measures, aimed at addressing trade imbalances and curbing illicit drug flows, are expected to spark retaliatory actions from the affected countries, adding to the economic tumult. The tariffs are expected to severely disrupt supply chains, increase consumer prices, and potentially slow economic growth in the U.S., while having outsized impacts on American allies and partners, according to the New York Times.

MEHMET OZ TO LEAD MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

the new role as Congress is debating cuts to the Medicaid program, which provides coverage to millions of poor and disabled Americans. Oz has not publicly opposed these cuts, and has emphasized initiatives like promoting healthier lifestyles, integrating AI and telehealth, and enhancing rural healthcare.

LAWYERS FOR TUFTS STUDENT DEMAND RETURN TO MASSACHUSETTS

Lawyers for Rumeysa Ozturk — the Tufts University graduate student who is currently being detained in Louisiana after being arrested by federal immigration enforcement last week — demanded her immediate return to Massachusetts in federal court on Thursday. Lawyers for the U.S. government have insisted that it did nothing wrong transporting Ozturk to Louisiana, arguing that ICE had a plan for her transport before she was detained and only moved her to Louisiana because there was no bed space for female immigration detainees in New England, according to the Associated Press.

TRUMP THREATENS TO WITHHOLD FUNDS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from public schools unless state education officials verified the elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in a Thursday memo, according to the New York Times. The Education Department said that funding for schools with high percentages of low-income students, known as Title I funding, was at risk pending compliance with the administration’s directive.

The death toll of the 7.7 magnitude earthquake that hit Myanmar last week has surpassed 3,000 people as search and rescue teams found more bodies. Information Minister Maung Maung Ohn announced that more than 4,500 people were injured as of Thursday, and humanitarian aid groups scrambled to provide survivors medical care and shelter. OVER 3,000 DEAD AFTER MYANMAR EARTHQUAKE

Friday 4/4

HARLEM ON MY MIND: 2025 JAZZ MASTER IN RESIDENCE - CATHERINE

RUSSELL

Sanders Theatre, 8:00-9:30 p.m.

Join the Harvard Jazz Orchestra Office for a special performance from the 2025 Jazz Master in Residence, vocalist Catherine Russell and the Harvard Jazz Orchestra.

Saturday 4/5

SPOTLIGHT TOUR: GOOD TASTE, WITH ISABELLE HALSEY ’25

Harvard Art Museums, 11:00-11:50 a.m.

“What makes “good taste”? Join this tour with Harvard College senior Isabelle Halsey ‘25 who discusses the history of what is considered good taste while viewing the Harvard Art Museum’s splendid displays from “Calyx Krater” to “Woman Bending Backward.”

Sunday 4/6

NATASHA BEDINGFIELD HEADLINES YARDFEST

Tercentenary Theatre, 4:00-6:00 p.m.

Bedingfield, a British singer and songwriter, joins several student bands on stage for the annual Harvard College spring concert. The celebration will follow several house block parties and inclue dinner serverd in Harvard Yard.

Monday 4/7

HOW THE UKRAINE WAR RESHAPES

DETERRENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

S354, CGIS South, 4:30-6:00 p.m.

Listen to Professor Troitskiy and Professor Remington discuss how the most profound impact of the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war may actually be in the Middle East through tacit deterrence or “quiet signals” to warn adversaries.

Tuesday 4/8

JOHN HEJDUK SOUNDINGS LECTURE: KENGO KUMA, “RETURN TO NATURE”

Piper Auditorium, Gund Hall, 6:30-8:00 p.m.

Speaker Kengo Kuma talks about his belief that architecture should blend human life and the natural environment by using architecture to reconnect people with nature but also maintaining the boundaries of urban space.

Wednesday 4/9

WALKING TOUR OF HARVARD’S PSYCHEDELIC HISTORY

Center for the Study of World Religions, 5:007:00 p.m. Harvard has a long history of interest in psychoactive drugs. This walking tour led by Jeffrey Breau and Paul Gillis-Smith discusses figures such as Ralph Waldo Emerson to contemporary figures.

Thursday 4/10

“IS EARTH EXCEPTIONAL?: THE QUEST FOR COSMIC LIFE” Jefferson Lab, 6:00-7:00 p.m.

Join former Harvard Medical School professor Jack Szostak and author Mario Livio for a conversation as they unveil discoveries on the origins of life and whether we’re alone in the universe.

Friday 4/11

CLIMATE CONNECT: COMMUNITYDRIVEN SOLUTIONS TO HEAT-BASED INEQUITY

Harvard Law School, 12:30-4:30 p.m.

Hear from six to seven experts in environmental justice and heat exposure in this one-day symposium seeking to promote collaboration and the exchange of knowledge in addressing environmental injustice as rates of heat exposure climb.

FRANK S. ZHOU — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

300 Call On Harvard To Defy Trump at HOOP Protest

100 professors were gathered inside University Hall for the monthly Faculty of Arts and Sciences faculty meeting. Organizers instructed attendees to chant loud enough for those inside to hear, and handed pamphlets with a list of demands to professors entering the administrative building.

Roughly 300 protesters marched from the Science Center, down Massachusetts Avenue, and through Widener Gate on Tuesday to protest the University “complying with fascism” and shake-ups at major academic centers on religion and the Middle East.

The march — which was the largest Harvard pro-Palestine rally this year — culminated in a demonstration outside University Hall, where event speakers bashed Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76’s statement in response to the Trump administration’s review of almost $9 billion in federal funds announced on Monday.

“President Garber showed where he stood yesterday,” Clyve Lawrence ’25-’27 said in a rally speech, referencing Garber’s Monday email where he vowed to work with the Trump administration’s task force on antisemitism.

Lawrence, a Crimson Editorial editor, said it represented a “complete capitulation to Donald Trump.”

A University spokesperson declined to comment on Tuesday’s rally, referring to Garber’s Monday email to Harvard affiliates.

While protesters spoke to the crowd outside about censorship of pro-Palestine views, more than

“You’ve probably seen in the last few speeches these faculty scurrying into this FAS meeting,” said Prince A. Williams ’25, a Crimson Editorial editor. “I saw some familiar faces.”

“I saw spineless professors who said nothing when our faces and names were on doxxing trucks,” he added.

While HOOP rallies in the past have narrowly focused on the Israel-Hamas War and calls for Harvard to divest from Israel, the Tuesday rally was mostly aimed at the Trump administration. Christopher F. Malley, a Ph.D. student in Middle East Studies affiliated with the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, read a statement by a group of graduate students in support of History Professor Rosie Bsheer and Professor of Turkish Studies Cemal Kafadar — the former CMES faculty directors who were dismissed last week.

“Professors Kafadar and Bsheer are the bedrock of the Center,” Malley said. “They are leading scholars in their fields and respected advisers, teachers, and mentors to Ph.D. and master’s students across the University.”

Amid uproar over Interim Harvard Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87’s decision to dismiss Kafadar and Bsheer, the University chapter of the American Association of University Professors al-

leged in a Monday press release that the two were removed because of a perceived imbalance in CMES programming surrounding Palestine. In the past, CMES events have been the subject of complaints from several Harvard affiliates who alleged that they platformed antisemitism.

“Their dismissal is a shameful act of censorship,” Malley added.

“It not only tarnishes the excellence of a long standing academic center at Harvard, but it sets a dangerous precedent for free inquiry across institutions of higher learning in the United States.”

Malley said he and other graduate students across the University would withhold their labor from CMES until Harvard met their demand to reinstate Bsheer and Kafadar. He clarified in an email to The Crimson that the work stoppage applies to instructing CMES courses, advising undergraduates and master’s students affiliated with CMES, and serving as research assistants for faculty affiliated with the center.

“We demand that Harvard, with immediate effect, issue a formal, written apology for their wrongful termination and guarantee the intellectual autonomy of the Center of Middle Eastern Studies,” Malley said at the rally.

Alexandra D. Potter, a Harvard

Divinity School student, also condemned HDS’s decision to pause its Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative on Monday, which allows students to study specific religious conflicts, including the ongoing War in Gaza.

“It is one of the only programs on campus which presents and funds intellectually honest information about Palestine,” Potter said. “Our school has decided that this program is disposable.”

HDS announced on Friday that it would pause the RCPI program, starting next academic year, in order to “rethink its focus and reimagine its future” as part of a five-year strategic plan initiative. The decision was posted to the school’s website, but not sent directly to HDS affiliates.

Addressing growing calls to defend international students from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and deportation threats, two protesters read aloud a list of demands to Garber and asked students to sign a HOOP petition.

The demands include refusing to share “student names, disciplinary records, personal information, and registrar data with the Trump administration or other third parties” and denying access to ICE on campus.

They also called on Garber to reinstate Kafadar and Bsheer to their former positions at CMES and to restore the RCPI.

The large protest was attended by a handful of counterprotesters, who blared the U.S. national anthem from three loudspeakers across the plaza as the crowd began chanting outside the Science Center.

They also played an audio tape over a speaker that alleged protesters at Harvard did not start protesting Trump until the government “started limiting Hamas influence on college campuses.”

Despite the noise, Williams proceeded to give a short speech to the protesters around him, condemning ICE arrests of international students and Trump’s decision to dismantle the Department of Education.

“We are sick and tired of this government abducting our friends and family. We are sick and tired of the gutting of public education,” Williams said. “And we are sick and tired of our taxpayer dollars going to murder millions of Palestinians with U.S. laid weapons.”

The protesters then left the plaza and headed toward Mass. Ave., chanting about recent actions taken by the federal government: “We

who received his

ter’s degree from Columbia University in December, and Ozturk, a graduate student at Tufts University, are both being held in ICE detention centers in Louisiana.

As the protesters approached the entrance to Harvard Yard, Harvard University

The

with Harvard to leave the Yard during the protest.

BY

WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Harvard College Dean Rakesh

Khurana said at a Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting on Tuesday that the federal government has weaponized genuine concerns about campus antisemitism to justify its attacks on higher education.

Though Khurana did not refer to President Donald Trump by name during his speech, he said Harvard should oppose coercive and illegal attempts to infringe on universities’ autonomy — even as it works to examine its own institutional flaws.

His remarks came one day after three federal agencies announced a review of more than $8 billion in multi-year federal grant commitments to Harvard, suggesting the funds may be in jeopardy if the University does not “root out” alleged antisemitism.

But Khurana quickly sought to limit the reach of his comments and walk back their implicit condemnation of Trump.

The Crimson reports on faculty meetings under the condition that remarks on undocketed items may only be directly quoted with the speaker’s approval. When asked for permission by The Crimson,

Khurana declined emphatically through a College spokesperson.

Via the spokesperson, Khurana also asked that The Crimson not suggest his remarks referred to Trump, even in summary.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has pulled hundreds of millions of dollars from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania over their policies on campus protests and transgender athletes, respectively.

Columbia’s decision to accede to some government demands in an attempt to win back funding drew condemnation from Columbia professors and prompted more than 600 Harvard faculty to sign a letter urging Harvard to reject “unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.”

Khurana’s comments — which were met with applause from a faculty body that has become increasingly restive amid the funding threats — marked the most forceful rebuke of Trump by a top Harvard administrator yet. They came one day after Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 wrote in a message to University affiliates that he would “engage” with a federal task force investigating Harvard over antisemitism.

Khurana said in his remarks

that antisemitism exists at Harvard and that he has witnessed it himself.

But he said addressing the issue did not warrant severe external intervention in University affairs.

He said attempts to control the material taught in classrooms and the identity of teachers were not good-faith reforms to address antisemitism but rather attempts at control. Such efforts were authoritarian and un-American, he added.

If Harvard were to compromise on its basic principles in response to external demands, Khurana said, then the University would have already lost the values it claims to defend.

Khurana also acknowledged critiques that Harvard lacked intellectual diversity and said the University still had more work to do to promote diverging viewpoints.

Khurana’s speech, which was not listed on the meeting docket, comes as Harvard has distanced itself from several programs that could be targeted by the Trump administration.

Last week, the Harvard School of Public Health announced it had severed ties with Birzeit University, a school in the West Bank. And the Harvard Divinity School announced it would pause the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative, which had drawn criticism over its programming on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Interim Harvard Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87 also dismissed the director and associate director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies last week. Both told colleagues he explained the dismissals as a response to the center’s allegedly imbalanced programming on Palestine.

The comment drew scattered sighs of exasperation from across the room.

Walter Johnson, a professor of History and of African and African American Studies, said he thought Hoekstra could not logically defend the dismissals while also advocating for academic freedom.

“I cannot for the life of me understand the earlier statement that combines a defense of the dismissal of two principled colleagues with a commitment to academic freedom,” Johnson said.

The CMES shakeup has caused an outpouring of out-

rage from students and faculty. Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors slammed the move in a statement Monday as infringing on academic freedom. And on Tuesday, roughly 300 demonstrators rallied against the shakeup at CMES and the HDS initiative — protesting just feet from the entrance to University Hall.

Inside, as Chalhoub and his colleagues pressed Hoekstra to explain the dismissals, chants of “Free Palestine” filtered into the room.

Anxiety at Harvard has only grown in recent days after the

Trump administration announced Monday that it would review nearly $9 billion in multi-year federal grants and $255 million in contracts.

“It seems like Harvard is doing exactly what is demanded by our critics, and almost exactly what was demanded by the Trump administration of Columbia,” Enos said. He added that at the faculty meeting in January, Hoekstra said that Harvard would defend universities against attacks on democracy by turning to its “core values.” He asked Tuesday how the dismissals at centers could be consistent with the values Hoekstra had invoked two months prior.

“The first thing that I’d like to say is that it is difficult,” Hoekstra began, before asking the room for a moment. She paused to look down at her notes.

“It’s difficult to answer your question without being able to share a lot of the details which I’m not comfortable doing when it relates to academic leadership,” she continued. “This puts us in an awkward position because I have different information than you.”

After repeating that academic freedom was a “red line” for her, Hoesktra attempted to conclude the question period, saying she was committed to finding more time to discuss the issues. But Enos introduced a motion to extend the question period. The motion passed, and the questions kept coming.

Harvard affiliates gathered outside University Hall for a rally organized by Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine. LOTEM L. LOEB — CRIMSON

FAS Makes Contingency Plan for Cuts

million in contracts to the University.

Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi

E. Hoekstra said Tuesday that the FAS is developing a contingency plan for the looming possibility that the Trump administration hits Harvard with steep federal funding cuts.

Hoekstra, whose comments opened a packed meeting of the faculty on Tuesday, said the FAS would conduct a 30-day impact assessment and establish guidance for principal investigators tailored to the specific attacks from Washington if and when it receives funding cuts.

“Working in close partnership with the academic divisions and SEAS, we will implement a shared approach. It will start with an initial period of assessment of the specific impacts of any action on our grant-funded research,” she said.

Hoekstra’s remarks came one day after the Trump administration announced a review of $8 billion in federal grants and $254

The announcement sparked fears that Harvard could be the next target in President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against higher education. In March, the federal government pulled more than $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University. The school ultimately bowed to several demands from the White House — including centralizing disciplinary policies and several regional studies departments under greater administrative control.

Just hours after the White House announced the review of Harvard’s funding, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 promised to “engage” with the Trump administration in an email to Harvard affiliates. Garber did not specify what Harvard would discuss with federal agencies or whether any demands had already been made.

On Tuesday, Hoekstra said she had not seen the letter detailing the government’s review of Harvard’s federal funding and did not know what the federal government’s review of Harvard’s federal funding would exactly entail. But she said the University had not seen any additional grants frozen or canceled, beyond those impacted by stop work orders already sent by federal agencies.

“For now, our grant funding is still in place and grant activities should continue as normal. Should that change, we will plan to communicate our approach to the FAS community and to work directly with impacted PIs on the steps they will need to take,” Hoesktra said.

She asked faculty to wait as the University works to better understand the details of the govern-

Harvard International Office Hires 4 New Staff Amid Visa Threats

The Harvard International Office has increased its full-time staff by 20 percent amid the Trump administration’s sudden revocation of student and faculty visas at peer institutions, a University official said at a Tuesday Faculty of Arts and Sciences meeting.

wake of the Trump administration’s actions. In recent weeks, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have escalated deportations of international students associated with pro-Palestine protests. As of last Thursday, the Trump administration had revoked the visas of at least 300 students, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. And Harvard Medical School

Vice President for Harvard’s Campus Services Sean Caron told faculty that the HIO has hired four additional staff members, bringing the number of its employees from 21 to 25. The HIO is partnering with Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic — which led the University’s response to immigration concerns during Trump’s presidency — to support international students in the

researcher Kseniia Petrova is currently being detained at an ICE facility in Louisiana after her visa was rescinded in February for failing to properly declare frog embryos.

The University appears to be expanding its response to growing concerns about Trump’s actions across the board. On Sunday, Harvard College Dean of Students Thomas G. Dunne delivered the first Col-

lege-wide message addressing student anxieties over deportations in an email, writing that “we know this is a very difficult time, and we are monitoring the situation closely.”

And during the Tuesday faculty meeting, FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra said that “the presence of our international students and scholars profoundly enriches our educational and research environment.”

Hoekstra also shared specific steps Harvard is taking, including closely monitoring the Student and Exchange Visitor Program database — which provides information on student visa statuses — and identifying a number of immigration attorneys. She added that the University would not provide identifiable information of students unless required by law.

History professor Jesse E. Hoffnung-Garskof ’93 asked Harvard to ensure that no student would be arrested or detained due to the cancellation of their visa. Hoffnung-Garskof suggested that the University close Harvard Yard to people without ID access, support departments that wish to require card access to their spaces, and alert University affiliates of any ICE activity.

In her response to Hoffnung-Garskof, Hoekstra said the HIO had told her that individualized guidance would be more useful than general policies and that the office’s advisors could provide individual consultation to assess students’ individual risks.

Hoekstra also expressed concern about the growing threats to international students and faculty at universities nationwide.

“I could not be more concerned about these actions’ impacts on higher education — now and in the future,” she said, adding that international students and postdocs had made significant contributions to her own lab.

“To remove these individuals deprives all of us of the benefit of their contributions to campus discourse and to our academic mission,” Hoekstra said.

ment’s review.

“I know this news is extraordinarily disconcerting and that it’s hard to process,” Hoekstra said.

“There is some important work that we, and only we, can do right now: maintain the continuity of our teaching and research mission.”

william.mao@thecrimson.com veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com

A co-chair of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee that examined self-censorship and classroom culture was caught off guard when FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra cited the committee’s report to justify requiring FAS center directors to show that their centers promote viewpoint diversity.

History professor Maya R. Jasanoff ’96, who co-chaired the FAS’ Classroom Social Compact Committee, wrote in a statement to The Crimson that she “was surprised to see the CSCC cited in this context” because the group’s work was focused primarily on the classroom instead of the school’s academic centers.

Jasanoff added that the CSCC’s scope went beyond just “intellectual diversity” and covered a range of other classroom norms as well.

A person familiar with the matter told The Crimson that Jasanoff privately felt the report’s findings were being inaccurately applied. Jasanoff declined to comment on this characterization but did not deny it.

Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88, the committee’s other co-chair, did not respond to requests for comment. A FAS spokesperson declined to comment.

Hoekstra’s demand of center directors was sent in a Tuesday email informing them to meet with their divisional deans to ensure their programming meets the FAS’ standards for “exposure to different ideas,

perspectives, and topics.” She wrote that the steps were a way “to seek more detail about how the principles articulated” by both the CSCC and the University-wide Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group. Her email came just as interim Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87 dismissed the director and associate director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies over the center’s programming on Palestine. Cutler justified the decision by saying the center’s events on Palestine were not sufficiently balanced, according to colleagues of the directors. In a Monday statement, the executive committee of the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors condemned the dismissals as an attack on academic centers’ autonomy to host academic programming. Though Jasanoff is not on the executive committee, she is an at-large member of the group. “For what it’s worth, I actually see the CSCC as a potential template for any future body that might be delegated to consider the academic life of FAS Centers,” Jasanoff wrote, explaining that such a body would be tasked with “carefully defining core concepts and safeguarding principles like academic freedom.”

“This kind of deliberative and consultative process is really important for consensus-building across the community,” Jasanoff added.

william.mao@thecrimson.com veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com

FAS Dean Asks Center Directors To Prove Viewpoint

Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra told directors of FAS centers they would be required to meet with their divisional deans to explain how their programs are complying with recent guidance on intellectual diversity in a Tuesday email.

In her email, Hoekstra informed center directors that they would be required to discuss their slate of programming and seminars, as well as the degree to which these activities meet the FAS’ standards for “exposure to different ideas, perspectives, and topics.”

She added that the directors would be asked to explain how they were promoting “respectful dialogue across controversial topics” and what changes, if any, their programs were implementing to follow recent FAS and University guidance on intellectual diversity and open dialogue.

“I write to seek more detail about how the principles articulated in these reports are being implemented in the FAS’s centers and institutes,” Hoekstra wrote.

Hoekstra’s Tuesday email was sent just one day before the director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, professor of Turkish Studies Cemal Kafadar, and the center’s associate director, History professor Rosie Bsheer, were forced to leave their posts.

The center had previously drawn backlash for some of its programming, which critics — including Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers — argued was antisemitic, focused excessively on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and did not properly represent Israeli perspectives.

At other schools — including Columbia University, which recently caved to demands from the Trump administration to put its Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian studies programs under administrative supervision — units that have drawn political ire have been restructured or faced cuts.

In her email, Hoekstra wrote

that the meetings with center directors were a path to implementing recommendations from a recent FAS committee report and the University-wide Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group, both of which urged Harvard to foster a range of perspectives in classrooms and programs across the University.

“We are advancing these commitments not only in our classrooms, but in all parts of the FAS,” Hoekstra wrote. “This includes programs, seminars, and activities, mounted by our departments, as well as our centers and institutes, which serve a strong pedagogical purpose.”

The FAS report found that many students frequently self-censor during conversations about controversial topics in class, and some have tailored assignments to align with

the perceived ideology of their instructors. The committee recommended that students be exposed to “diverse viewpoints” and that faculty “acknowledge the range of perspectives” in their fields.

Hoekstra wrote in her email Tuesday that she would regularly discuss the centers’ progress with divisional deans and would work to provide directors with the necessary feedback and tools “to meet the expectation of advancing an open and constructive learning environment.”

Several center directors contacted by The Crimson Friday afternoon and evening said it was too early to comment on the implications of Hoekstra’s announcement.

Harvard FAS is developing a contingency plan for the possibility of federal funding cuts. MAIREAD B. BAKER — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Hoekstra

BY WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

BY WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

COVER STORY

Harvard’s Next Move

DEFY OR COMPLY. Har-

vard’s reply to Trump may set the tone for academia.

BY

In a tightly-worded Thursday letter to University President Alan M. Garber ’76, the Trump administration gave Harvard an ultimatum: eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, ban masks at protests, and accept a slew of other demands — or lose more than $8 billion in federal funding.

Harvard had seen the writing on the wall for months.

Even before Trump took office, Garber made six visits to Washington, D.C., meeting with roughly 40 members of Congress to navigate a hostile political environment. Days before Trump’s inauguration, Harvard retained a lobbying firm with deep ties to Trump’s inner circle.

But when Trump issued his ultimatum Thursday, three days after announcing roughly $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding was under review, the University was roiled by internal unrest as faculty and administrators continued to debate its course of action.

Harvard had spent the past week taking steps seemingly designed to convince Washington it was reining in academic programs accused of spreading antisemitism.

The University severed ties with a prominent Palestinian university, dismissed the directors of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and halted a Harvard Divinity School

program focused on religion and conflict.

Even as some critics cheered, the backlash within Harvard’s gates was swift and fierce.

Less than two weeks after Columbia University bowed to demands from Trump in an attempt to win back $400 million in federal dollars, many Harvard affiliates saw the shakeups as a capitulation — and the University’s next move as a bellwether for the rest of higher education.

“It seems like Harvard is doing exactly what is demanded by our critics,” Government professor Ryan D. Enos said at a faculty meeting.

“Can Veritas be bought?” asked a sign held by demonstrators in Harvard Yard.

And former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, typically no ally of student protesters, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times asking, “If powerful places like Harvard don’t stand up to Trump, who can?”

No Half Measures

So far, Harvard officials have tried to say they can protect the University’s independence while attempting to address the Trump administration’s concerns.

“The government has informed us that they are considering this action because they are concerned that the University has not fulfilled its obligations to curb and combat antisemitic harassment,” Garber wrote to University affiliates on Monday. “We fully embrace the important goal of combating antisemitism, one of the most insidious

forms of bigotry.”

And in a Tuesday meeting, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra told the FAS that protecting academic freedom was a “red line” for her — but defended the decision to push out the CMES’ leaders, saying it was in the center’s own best interests.

Though the White House signaled in a Monday press release that it welcomed Harvard’s intervention at the CMES and decision to cut ties with Birzeit University, its Thursday letter introduced an entirely new set of demands.

As Harvard’s leaders decide their next steps, they may find it impossible to make their case to both the White House and an increasingly restive contingent of students and faculty.

Roughly 300 protesters gathered outside University Hall on Tuesday to protest what they called Harvard’s compliance with Trump. And a group of faculty told Hoekstra that the CMES dismissals were incompatible with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.

If Harvard were to dismantle its DEI offices or lay off staff en masse, the move would represent a clear about-face for Garber, who described diversity as a “critical enabler of learning” as recently as February.

A ban on the use of masks would draw challenges from student protesters, who have often concealed their faces, and could force the University to escalate its punishments. Those steps would not go unnoticed by faculty, some of whom are suing Trump administration officials over attempts to deport

pro-Palestine activists and cuts to diversity-related grants.

Even if Trump were to accept more limited concessions, the appearance of defeat would open Harvard up to harsh criticism from those who want it to oppose his agenda at every turn. But attempts to stem campus outrage could jeopardize Harvard’s chances at preserving its access to federal funds.

When then-interim Columbia President Katrina A. Armstrong privately informed faculty that the university would only partially enforce a mask ban demanded by Trump, the White House quickly indicated that her words could mean a deal was off the table. Within days, Armstrong was out — and Columbia still did not have its funding back.

The Path Forward

Harvard may find itself walking a tightrope to keep the money flowing. But some prominent voices are calling on the University to reject the balancing act altogether — and emerge instead as academia’s anti-Trump standard-bearer.

More than 600 Harvard faculty members also expressed support for entering a legal battle against the White House, asking the University to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance” in a letter to Harvard’s governing boards.

Last month, Provost John Manning ’82 and Hoekstra privately told alumni donors that Harvard would

be open to leading legal challenges against directives from Washington under certain circumstances. However, it remains unclear whether Manning, Hoekstra, and Garber believe the latest demands are significant enough to go to court.

A legal battle would likely prompt immediate retaliation from Trump — and potentially catastrophic funding cuts. But some who see Trump’s actions as a threat to academic freedom say that Harvard is well-positioned to take up the fight.

Summers urged Harvard to use its “financial resources, access to media, and great prestige” to mount a legal challenge against the White House’s funding directives.

“I hope it will avail itself of every legal remedy and challenge overbroad and excessively rapid applications of federal power so the right to regulate is not the right to extort,” said Summers, who added that he thought legal opposition should be accompanied by more robust efforts to fight antisemitism.

Judith R. Hope — a former member of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — said Harvard could spark a broader movement against Trump.

“There are others that are equally good, but there’s nothing with such a reputation as Harvard,” said Hope, who left the Corporation in 2000. “If Harvard stands tall, other people will say ‘Oh, okay, I could do that too.’”

If Harvard won’t do it, who will do it?” she asked.

dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com grace.yoon@thecrimson.com

Trump Admin To Review Billions in Federal Funding

BY DHRUV T. PATEL AND GRACE E. YOON CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Three federal agencies announced a review of more than $8 billion in “multi-year grant commitments” to Harvard as part of an ongoing investigation into the University by the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Monday.

The review — which was launched by the Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and the United States General Services Administration — marks a drastic escalation in the Trump administration’s threats against Harvard over its response to pro-Palestine protests and alleged campus antisemitism.

The review also includes more than $255 million in contracts.

It comes weeks after the Trump administration pulled more than $400 million in federal funding to

Columbia University, demanding in exchange that Columbia change disciplinary policies and place its Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian studies programs under administrative control.

Columbia ultimately caved to many of the demands — but the exchange resulted in massive national backlash and the abrupt ouster of the university’s interim president. Harvard, confronted with an unprecedented threat to its operations, may be forced to decide how much it is willing to concede in order to preserve its federal funding.

The public announcement of the review into Harvard’s funds did not outline specific demands but linked to a document outlining the conditions issued to Columbia.

“Harvard’s failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination — all while promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry — has put its reputation in

serious jeopardy,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon wrote in the press release.

Just four days before the Trump administration pulled $400 million in federal funding, Columbia received a letter — similar to Harvard’s — saying that its federal grants and contracts were being reviewed. It is unclear whether funding cuts will follow in Harvard’s case.

Under the review, the Trump administration will examine individual contracts to determine whether stop-work orders should be issued.

The University will also be expected to provide the White House with a list of federal contracts not included in the initial review.

A University spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“We could not carry out our mission the way we do now without substantial federal research support, nor could we provide the benefits to the nation that we do now

without that support,” Garber said in a December interview with The Crimson.

Harvard has spent months bracing for an unstable political future and potentially massive losses to its funding — especially after the Trump administration repeatedly threatened research funding. Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 announced a University-wide hiring freeze in early March, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences issued budget guidance in February urging FAS leadership to keep spending flat in fiscal year 2026.

But Monday’s review puts Harvard squarely in the crosshairs of more targeted threats.

At Columbia, then-interim President Katrina Armstrong capitulated to the Trump administration’s demands within two weeks. But after Armstrong seemed to downplay the extent of Columbia’s concessions at a faculty meeting — possibly to pacify an outraged professo-

riate — she abruptly departed from her seat, which was filled by one of the school’s trustees.

The crisis at Columbia illustrates that, elsewhere, top university brass have opted to trade policy concessions for a chance at leniency.

But similar moves at Harvard could ignite backlash among faculty who see them as compromising its academic independence. In an extraordinary show of unity, more than 600 Harvard faculty signed a letter urging the University’s governing boards to “refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.”

The federal antisemitism task force — which is investigating nine other schools, including Columbia — plans to visit Harvard’s campus but has not yet announced a date.

dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com grace.yoon@thecrimson.com

Garber Promises To ‘Engage’ With Federal Task Force

BY DHRUV

Harvard President Alan M. Garber

’76 wrote that he would welcome the opportunity to work with the White House in an email to Harvard affiliates just hours after the Trump administration initiated a review of more than $8 billion in federal funding. Garber did not specify what exactly Harvard would discuss with the Trump administration or any demands that the University was asked to satisfy.

The Trump administration’s Monday decision to review Harvard’s federal funding marked a dramatic escalation in its threats against Harvard and brought Republicans’ long-standing promises to a head. The review was launched in connection with a federal task force probing antisemitism complaints at Harvard.

Garber wrote in his email that

Harvard would work with the Trump administration to answer questions regarding antisemitism on campus.

“We will engage with members of the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism,” he wrote.

Garber’s email condemned the cuts to research funding, writing that cutting off the flow of money would “halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation” — consistent with Harvard’s past messaging.

But he struck a conciliatory tone, writing that Harvard was “not perfect” and that antisemitism was “present on our campus.”

“Antisemitism is a critical problem that we must and will continue to address,” Garber wrote. “As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all

to thrive.”

Garber wrote that he had experienced antisemitism during his tenure as Harvard’s president and that campus antisemitism was “damaging” to students’ learning experiences. The unusual appeal to his personal experience served as a reminder — to University affiliates and to Washington — that Harvard has for more than a year been led by a Jewish president.

Garber’s email was similar in both wording and tone to the message that former interim Columbia President Katrina Armstrong issued shortly after the Trump administration cut $400 million in federal funding from the Ivy League institution, demanding the university introduce new protest restrictions and place several regional studies programs in academic receivership.

Armstrong’s March 7 message, in which she vowed Columbia would “do better” in the fight against antisemitism, presented the federal demands as aligned

with Columbia’s values — and preceded her decision two weeks later to accept many of the White House’s conditions.

Even so, Garber seemed to acknowledge widespread criticism among faculty of Columbia’s concessions, writing that his administration will “take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.”

If the Trump administration does not back down from its threats, Garber could find himself caught in a legitimacy crisis — attempting to stave off devastating cuts to the University and its affiliated hospitals, but risking outcry from faculty and students who see concessions as compromising Harvard’s institutional independence.

But Monday’s email also seemed like an effort to prevent the worstcase scenario. Garber reiterated the policy changes Harvard had introduced since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel — which include tightened policies on the use of

Funding Cuts Across Ivies

BY HUGO C. CHIASSON AND AMANN S. MAHAJAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

As Harvard waits for the Trump administration to decide whether it will cut nearly $9 billion in grants and contracts to the University, its peers in the Ivy League have been slapped with threats of their own. Some Ivy League presidents have signaled they are willing to push back on conditions placed on their funding. Others have yet to receive demands from the federal government. And Columbia University opted to accept key provisions of an ultimatum from the Trump administration

campus spaces; stricter time, place, and manner limits on protests; and revised nondiscrimination guidance that now includes a definition of antisemitism that condemns certain criticisms of Israel.

“We have strengthened our rules and our approach to disciplining those who violate them,” he wrote.

Harvard has spent the last few months preparing aggressively for significant losses to its funding — especially in the wake of Trump’s repeated threats against research funding. Earlier this month, Garber announced a Harvard-wide hiring freeze to safeguard against “further adjustments” in federal funding policy.

While the review puts nearly $9 billion in federal funding at risk of being cut, the Trump administration has not yet canceled any federal grants or contracts to Harvard as part of the task force investigation.

dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com grace.yoon@thecrimson.com

Less than a week later, the administration gave Columbia a one-week deadline to comply with a series of demands, including placing its Middle Eastern studies programs in academic receivership and cracking down on protesters. On March 21, shortly before an extended deadline was set to

Claire Shipman.

Penn — $175 million

Trump paused $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania on March 19 over its policies on transgender athletes. Since the suspension, Penn researchers have received stopwork orders for roughly $175 million in research grants. As of Thursday, the Trump administration has not said whether there are conditions the university must meet to see its funding restored.

Princeton — $210 million

The Trump administration suspended $210 million in research grants to Princeton University on Tuesday as part of a Department of Education investigation into campus antisemitism.

Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber wrote in an email to university affiliates that while the “full rationale” behind the action remains unclear, Princeton “will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism.” The Trump administration has not yet issued demands to Princeton. In an interview with Bloomberg this week, Eisgruber said Princeton would be “willing to say no to funding if it’s going to constrain our ability to pursue the truth.”

Brown — $510 million

The White House plans to withhold $510 million in federal funding from Brown University over its response to antisemitism allegations and its diversity, equity, and inclusion programming. The plans became public Thursday, but Brown’s provost said the university had not yet been notified of cuts by the federal government.

Brown President Christina M. Paxson wrote in a message to affiliates in March that Brown would “vigorously exercise our legal rights” against orders that threatened the university’s operations or academic functions.

Yale, Cornell, Dartmouth Yale University and Cornell University have not yet faced targeted funding reviews or cuts, but both are on a list of 60 universities that the Department of Education is monitoring or investigating for Title VI violations.

Dartmouth College has yet to be singled out for funding cuts.

hugo.chiasson@thecrimson.com amann.mahajan@thecrimson.com

HUGO

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL

HDS Suspends Peace Initiative

BUDGET CUTS. HDS paused the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative amid funding loss, bias allegations.

BY SEBASTIAN B. CONNOLLY

AND JULIA A. KARABOLLI CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Harvard Divinity School will suspend its Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative amid budget cuts at HDS and public accusations that the initiative’s programming presents a one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The pause — which was announced Friday on the HDS website — comes after HDS Dean Marla F. Frederick assembled a committee to review the Religion and Public Life program, which the RCPI is housed under.

The announcement arrived the same week as Harvard forced out the faculty leaders of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies — another program that has come under fire

for alleged antisemitism in its programming. The Harvard School of Public Health has also suspended its partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank. According to a Harvard Divinity School spokesperson, the Divinity School is planning to expand the focus of the RCPI, in line with the committee’s recommendations. The school is also planning to hire a faculty member specializing in religion, conflict, and peace. The pause on the program will allow school leaders “to rethink its focus and reimagine its future,” according to Friday’s announcement.

The changes at the RCPI make it the latest in a series of university programs that have been shaken up or shut down following pressure from the Trump administration to back away from scholarship on certain topics — including Palestine as well as race and gender.

Columbia University agreed last month to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies programs under closer adminis-

trative control, as part of an attempt to persuade the Trump administration to restore $400 million in federal funding.

Harvard is facing more pressure than ever following the administration’s announcement on Monday that billions of dollars in federal funding to the University had been placed under review.

The pause may also be an indication that the RPL program is facing direct financial pressure. The Friday announcement cited “longand short-term budgetary issues related to RCPI’s loss of financial support” and said that the Divinity School will face a reduced budget next fiscal year.

The RPL program has already seen significant leadership turnover in recent months. Its director, Diane L. Moore, announced her retirement in January, departing a semester earlier than originally planned.

And its assistant director, Hussein Rashid, announced plans to resign at the end of this year in a let-

ter to affiliates that same month, in which he slammed Harvard for failing to respond to criticism of the program.

The RCPI — which hosts fellowships and holds events on religious studies and global conflict — has faced criticism for its programming on Israel and Palestine. The RCPI also offers experiential learning opportunities to students, including a trip to Israel and the West Bank led by Moore, although that opportunity has been temporarily placed on hold, according to the RCPI website.

The Harvard Jewish Alumni Association, an alumni advocacy group, claimed in a May 2024 report that the program “appears to focus entirely on the Palestinians.”

The RCPI was also singled out in HDS graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum’s ongoing Title VI lawsuit accusing Harvard of fostering antisemitism.

The RCPI structures its programming around case studies, and its current case study is the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Allegations of antisemitism against RPL began in October 2023 in response to a newsletter authored by RPL faculty and administrators — including Moore, the director at the time, as well as the RCPI’s associate director — asking Divinity School affiliates to “challenge single story narratives that justify vengeance and retaliation” shortly after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.

The Divinity School’s interim dean at the time issued a statement distancing both the school and the RPL program from the letter.

According to Friday’s announcement, the review of RPL is part of a strategic planning process for the Divinity School that began in fall 2024.

of

The committee conducting the review consists of “highly regarded scholars from peer institutions” who were tapped in accordance with a spring 2024 recommendation from the Association of Theological Schools, per the announcement. The committee met with faculty, staff, and students in March and also recommended the Divinity School “better integrate” the master’s program in Religion and Public Life with its

sebastian.connolly@thecrimson.com

julia.karabolli@thecrimson.com

Harvard Dismisses Leaders of Center for Middle Eastern Studies

BY WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Interim Harvard Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87 dismissed the faculty leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies on Wednesday, according to a faculty member familiar with the situation — a dramatic shakeup at a center that has come under fire for its programming on Israel and Palestine. The CMES’ director, professor of Turkish Studies Cemal Kafadar, and its associate director, History professor Rosie Bsheer, were both forced to leave their posts, according to the faculty member.

Global Health professor Salmaan A. Keshavjee — the center’s interim director while Kafadar was on leave — will continue to hold his post. The departures come after the CMES has repeatedly faced public criticism from Harvard affiliates who have alleged that some of the center’s programming has been antisemitic and has failed to represent Israeli perspectives. Amid a mounting pressure campaign by the Trump administration, Harvard’s peers have begun shuttering or overhauling programs that the White House says require supervision. At Columbia University, where the Trump administration announced $400 million in federal funding cuts, admin-

AAUP Supports CMES

BY WILLIAM C. MAO AND VERONICA H. PAULUS CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Interim Harvard Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler ’87 dismissed the Center for Middle Eastern Studies’ faculty leaders last week because he felt their programming on Palestine was insufficiently balanced, Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors alleged in a Monday press release.

A faculty member with knowledge of the conversations between Cutler and the center’s leaders confirmed Harvard AAUP’s account to The Crimson. The Crimson previously reported on Friday that the center’s director, Turkish studies professor Cemal Kafadar, and associate director, History assistant professor Rosie Bsheer, had been forced to leave their posts.

In those conversations, the AAUP wrote, Cutler specifically referenced two CMES events in the spring: a panel titled “An Ongoing Threat: Israel’s War on Lebanon, Past and Present” and a panel that CMES co-sponsored at the Harvard School of Public Health on “Attacks on children in Gaza.”

Several Harvard affiliates had previously criticized the center’s events, alleging that they platformed antisemitism.

Early last month, former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers wrote in a post on X that he felt the panel on Lebanon was “very likely” antisemitic under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. The University adopted IHRA’s definition of antisemitism in January as part of a settlement with a group of Jewish Harvard students suing the University over alleged “severe” antisemitism on campus.

Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson James M. Chisholm wrote in a statement that Cutler disputed the AAUP’s characterization of his discussions with the center’s leaders, including the

claim that he had specifically cited the two CMES events.

“Dean Cutler raised the issue of ensuring more voices are heard in the study of the Middle East. He explicitly disputes any portrayal of him attempting to limit certain points of view,” Chisholm wrote.

In their Monday release, Harvard AAUP condemned the CMES dismissals, writing that they infringed on academic freedom. The faculty group called on the FAS to release “any reports or evaluations” detailing how CMES had failed to meet the school’s standards for balance in their programming.

The statement asserted that CMES had hosted a “wide range of programming” over the past several years and argued that requiring a complete balance of topics and ideologies would amount to “an impossible and inappropriate standard” for any one academic program to meet.

The group also demanded that the administration reinstate Kafadar and Bsheer to their posts at CMES and issue a statement defending the “intellectual autonomy of academic centers.”

“Not only has such a standard never been required before of any other centers, but the standard itself, if real, would be a new ideological attempt by critics of the university to undermine its faculty’s subject-area expertise and to dictate what its faculty teaches,” the statement read.

Though faculty members — at Harvard and elsewhere — were largely critical of the decision to dismiss Bsheer and Kafadar, there were some who cheered the move online.

“Going into Shabbat with some good news,” Rabbi David J. Wolpe — a former Harvard Divinity School visiting scholar who resigned from Harvard’s antisemitism advisory group in the fall of 2023 — wrote in a Friday post on X.

william.mao@thecrimson.com veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com

istrators acceded to White House demands to place the school’s Middle Eastern studies programs under closer administrative supervision.

Cutler announced in an email to some center affiliates, which was obtained by The Crimson, that Kafadar would depart from his CMES directorship at the end of the year. Cutler thanked Kafadar for his work at CMES before asking colleagues to suggest potential candidates for future leadership by April 16.

“I would value your thoughts on who, in addition to intellectual leadership and a compelling vision for the Center, would also bring the necessary administrative skills to be successful in this crucial role,”

Cutler wrote.

Cutler’s email did not give a reason for Kafadar’s departure. Bsheer was not named in the email.

A spokesperson for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences declined to comment. Bsheer, Keshavjee, and Kafadar also did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday afternoon.

The apparent firings are an especially notable move from Cutler, an economist who is only expected to hold the Social Science divisional deanship for one semester while Dean Lawrence D. Bobo is on leave. Kafadar is on leave for the 20242025 academic year. Keshavjee, who is also affiliated with the Anthropology department and is Adams House faculty dean, has

served as the center’s interim director in his absence. In recent days, Harvard has moved to publicly distance itself from programs that have come under fire for alleged antisemitism or for affiliates’ criticism of Israel. The Harvard School of Public Health recently suspended its research partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank, yielding to repeated demands to break ties with the institution.

Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers wrote in a March post on X that a February panel at CMES about “Israel’s war in Lebanon” was “very likely” antisemitic under the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism,

which Harvard adopted as part of a settlement agreement in January. A report from the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance, an alumni advocacy group, in May accused the CMES of demonizing Israel as the “last remaining colonial settler power embodying the world’s worst evils: racism, apartheid, and genocide.”

The report accused the CMES of disproportionately focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict relative to other regions or issues. It included a laundry list of events that the report’s authors deemed suspicious, unbalanced, or objectionable. One student, quoted anony-

william.mao@thecrimson.com veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com

A $9B Review Would Hit Hospitals the Hardest

BY SAKETH SUNDAR CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

The Trump administration’s sweeping federal review of nearly $9 billion in multi-year research funding tied to Harvard has sparked uncertainty across the University — but the brunt of the planned cuts will be felt by Boston hospitals, not the University.

Five independent Boston hospitals affiliated with Harvard Medical School — Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center — collectively received more than $1.56 billion in National Institutes of Health funding in fiscal year 2024.

That figure is more than double the $686 million the University received from the federal government at large in the same year.

The Trump administration’s funding review stems from an investigation launched by the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which has accused Harvard of failing to adequately address antisemitic incidents on campus.

While the alleged violations are largely related to Harvard College and the University’s Cambridge campus, the consequences will fall mostly on the hospitals.

The Crimson analyzed the proposed Trump administration funding cuts and estimated that the five hospitals’ multi-year commitment from the NIH is over $6.2 billion and the University’s multi-year federal research funding exceeds $2.7 billion.

The combined figure nears the $9 billion cited by federal officials, but it remains unclear if the funding review is limited to these select grants.

The methodology utilized a four-year projection based on fiscal year 2024, since Harvard and its affiliates would not face an immediate single-year loss of $9 billion, as most federal research awards span three to five years.

These hospitals — despite employing Harvard Medical School faculty and co-sponsoring research projects — are not governed by the University and are not backed by Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment. Instead, they operate as financially independent nonprofits, with federal grants comprising a large share of their research budgets.

In an email to Harvard affiliates on Monday, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 confirmed that the nearly $9 billion in multi-year federal grants supported “Harvard and other institutions, including hospitals in our community.” Garber cautioned that the loss of that funding would “halt life-saving research.”

Jonathan C. Kagan, Director of Basic Research and Chair of Gastroenterology at BCH, criticized the response from academic leaders at Harvard.

“Before any budget cuts have even been made, academic leaders have stalled hiring, stalled expansions, stalled research conferences and graduate student admissions,” Kagan wrote in a statement to The Crimson.

“Stated differently, our academic leaders are following the White House in cutting research opportunities,” he added.

University Spokesperson Sarah Kennedy O’Reilly declined to comment on whether the University plans to support these institutions during the funding review.

O’Reilly pointed to Garber’s statement on Monday where he wrote “we resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom.”

MGH was the top-funded hospital in the country by NIH in fiscal year 2024, receiving $655 million. BWH received $388 million, BCH $230 million, Dana-Farber $164 million, and Beth Israel Deaconess $119 million.

All five hospitals ranked among the top ten nationwide in NIH funding.

Sally Rockey, a former deputy director for extramural research at the NIH under the recent Bush and Obama administrations, said the disconnect between the review’s stated purpose of campus antisemitism and its actual target — federally funded biomedical research — is “unprecedented.”

“That relationship between what’s going on in biomedical research versus the stance any particular institution is taking to monitor its antisemitism or other types of activity is really unheard of,” she said.

Rockey explained that it is highly unusual for federal grant oversight to conflate University and hospital-based research funding even in ecosystems like HMS, where clinical and academic boundaries are often blurred.

“There’s a close association with the hospitals, with Mass General and Brigham,” she said. “But in general, they’re not considered affiliated, particularly in the research world.”

“That’s very unheard of, I don’t know how they’re making those links so that they can use that to extend their inquiries,” Rockey added.

Beth Israel Lahey Health spokesperson Sarah Finlaw wrote in a statement to The Crimson that BIDMC administration is monitoring the situation closely.

“Any changes to federal research funding will have a significant impact on our ability to recruit talented clinicians, who have led medical breakthroughs impacting care for patients around the world,” she wrote. “We are aware of the announced review of Harvard and its affiliates by the federal government and continue to monitor the situation.”

A spokesperson for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute declined to comment on how the Institute plans to respond to the review. Spokespeople for MGH, BWH, and BCH did not respond to requests for comment.

In a Mar. 20 email obtained by The Crimson addressing funding cancellations at Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, MGB Chief Academic Officer Paul Anderson wrote that “a task force composed of senior MGB leadership, physician-scientists and chairs is working to identify immediate strategies and contingency plans to respond to potential funding disruptions and terminations across the organization.” Still, many researchers said they had not received any direct communication from the various hospitals’ administrations about the $9 billion review since Monday. However, they were provided with general institutional guidance on how to respond if an NIH grant is terminated.

These guidelines instructed principal investigators to immediately halt project activities, notify personnel, initiate formal appeals, and coordinate with oversight bodies to shut down the project. The hospitals depend on NIH support to fund thousands of active research programs. In 2024 alone, MGH held over 1,000 NIH awards; BWH, 675; DFCI, 243; BIDMC, 215; and BCH had 429. The grants support a wide range of activities including molecular biology wet labs and late-stage clinical trials. With limited information about which programs fall under the scope of the review, researchers said they are unsure whether their work will be paused, scaled back, or canceled entirely.

“There is much concern among members of our research community as we cope with the national news,” wrote Philip A. Cole, a HMS professor and researcher at BWH. “We are especially worried about younger scientists, and how the threat of major funding reductions will impact their well-being and outlook,” Cole added.

Mass General Brigham — the parent organization of MGH and BWH — confirmed internally to its research staff that preparations to respond to funding cancellations are underway.

saketh.sundar@thecrimson.com

JOSHUA A. NG — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

FAS Body Suggests Discipline Overhaul

AFaculty of Arts and Sciences committee recommended that Harvard College rework its process for appealing disciplinary sanctions and institute a minimum requirement for the number of tenure-track faculty who serve on the Administrative Board — the College’s main disciplinary body for student misconduct.

The recommendations, which were released in a report Friday, were endorsed by FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra. The report sidestepped the question of whether the Ad Board should have student members or not, a change the College’s student government has been demanding in recent weeks.

The committee recommended that the FAS only allow appeals from students who were required to withdraw from the school as a result of their sanctions. This would prevent students who are put on probation from petitioning for their case to be reheard — which is currently allowed.

The faculty group also suggested that the FAS form a pool of ladder faculty with experience in disciplinary proceedings. These faculty members would serve on either a new committee tasked with evaluating student appeals or on the Ad Board when the group is overwhelmed with cases. The FAS’ docket committee is currently the first layer of review for appeals.

The committee’s recommendations will be discussed by the FAS in its monthly meeting on Tuesday.

The Ad Board review was first announced in October by Hoekstra after students and faculty members criticized the Ad Board’s handling of disciplinary proceedings against pro-Palestine student protesters in the previous semester. Many alleged the body had been unfairly harsh when it initially blocked 13 seniors from graduating that spring.

Though the report states that probation “does not impede a student’s academic progress and ap -

pears only temporarily on a student’s record,” it can impact the timing of their graduation.

Last year, most of the students sanctioned for their participation in the pro-Palestine Harvard Yard encampment were placed on probation, instead of suspension. Because they were not in “good standing,” however, they were not allowed to graduate until after their subsequent appeals.

The committee — composed of eight professors and administrators — was chaired by History professor Ann M. Blair ’84. The body also reviewed the disciplinary process at the Gradu-

ate School of Arts and Sciences,

though it did not make any substantive recommendations as it determined the school’s process already had sufficient faculty representation.

The report said the committee had met with representatives of the Harvard Undergraduate Association who presented arguments for student involvement on the Ad Board. Although the committee described the HUA’s arguments as “cogent,” it wrote that it couldn’t make a recommendation on student participation as the proposal came too late in the committee’s consultation

process.

The appeals system which the committee recommended be overhauled currently relies on two general FAS bodies: the docket committee and the Faculty Council. The smaller docket committee must first rule that an appeal meets one of two grounds — procedural error or sanctions inconsistent with usual practice — before sending it to a final vote of the larger Faculty Council. If an appeal passes both bodies, the Ad Board will be asked to reconsider its decision.

The report stated that “most” professors on the docket com-

mittee — who are tasked with overseeing much more than disciplinary cases and whose members don’t necessarily have expertise with Ad Board proceedings — reported that they were unaware of their disciplinary role until they were faced with a case. But the proposed pool of ladder professors would fill the new appeals committee with members who have direct experience with these proceedings. It would also provide experienced faculty members a chance to serve on the Ad Board itself.

The committee suggested a minimum of four professors for the Ad Board but wrote that they would leave the details to Hoekstra.

“A greater presence of ladder faculty on the Ad Board has been a recommendation in all prior documents reviewing the Ad Board and is a top priority among the recommendations of this committee,” the report read. In addition to calling for more experienced faculty, the committee suggested inaugurating training for Ad Board

Adams House Resident Dean Charles “Chip” Lockwood issued a warning Friday evening to a student who reserved a room in Adams for a meeting of the African and African American Resistance Organization, an unrecognized student group. Lockwood wrote to Sa’maia J. Evans ’27 that she would be reported to the Harvard College Administrative Board for reserving a room in the Adams House Inn for a March 29 general membership meeting of AFRO.

The Ad Board is the College’s disciplinary body, but dean’s warnings alone do not constitute formal disciplinary action. Lockwood wrote that Evans would also be barred from using the Roombook system to reserve spaces in Adams House for the remainder of the semester.

In the email, Lockwood referred to the College’s student handbook, which states that “non-Harvard or as unrecognized

meeting would “result in a referral to the Administrative Board” and asked her to notify the Adams House email list that the meeting would not take place.

Evans complied, emailing the list to say that AFRO would not hold a meeting in the room she had booked. But she urged students “interested in talking about the political moment” and Harvard’s response to gather in the Adams House Inn dining hall at the same time as the planned meeting.

“Use student spaces, eat in student dining halls, talk about issues that relate to students, and ensure that the University acts as a university and not a corporation and serves its students,” she wrote, capitalizing the message for emphasis.

Evans also included a screenshot of the dean’s warning and denounced the actions taken against her and AFRO in her email, writing that the group was “being targeted because it is a Black political student organization that threatens the benevolent facade that this University tries to maintain.”

organizations are not permitted to conduct any activity at Harvard even though their activities involve Harvard undergraduates.”

Lockwood also wrote in the email that he had sent Evans a warning earlier this month after she had reserved the same room for a different AFRO event.

He wrote that “any attempt to go forward” with the Saturday

“While ICE and the federal government are literally abducting students off of the street, Chip Lockwood and this University are cancelling roombooks and threatening students with the Ad Board in a moment where we need their protection,” she added. Lockwood did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday evening. A College spokes-

person declined to comment, citing a policy against commenting on student disciplinary matters.

Evans also wrote in a Friday evening statement that “the issue at hand is that Harvard is weaponizing its policy to punish students for being committed to organizing against the corruption of a University that is complicit in the crimes of the federal administration.”

“We are all students that attend this University, and we have the right to use student spaces to discuss student issues,” she added.

The dispute comes as Harvard comes under increasing pressure to apply strict interpretations of its policies limiting unrecognized organizations. The University is currently facing a lawsuit that alleges Harvard has violated its policies and permitted antisemitism by allowing unrecognized groups, including AFRO, to hold protests on campus.

College Dean Rakesh Khurana said in a Tuesday interview that College policies restrict unrecognized student organizations from accessing Harvard’s resources — including campus spaces.

“Unrecognized student organizations cannot and should not use our resources,” Khurana said. “I would ask any student who believes that there was abuse — or people who were at the event — of our student organization policies to report that to the Dean of Students Office.”

But Evans’ response poses a challenge to House and College administrators looking to crack down on unauthorized events: how to distinguish between spontaneous student gatherings and events organized under the auspices of unrecognized groups.

Last month, AFRO hosted a town hall in Sever Hall, one of Harvard’s academic buildings, to discuss the U.S. Department of Education’s February Dear Colleague letter directing federally funded universities to end all race-based decision-making.

The group also held a discussion on affirmative action and reparations in the Adams Inn on March 8.

BY SAMUEL A. CHURCH AND

N. SRIVASTAVA CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Roughly 20 Harvard members of the African and African American Resistance Organization gathered in the Adams dining hall on Saturday to discuss campus policies and censorship — even after administrators warned a leader not to use House spaces for meetings.

The meeting was originally going to take place in a conference room 217 in the Adams Inn. But it was moved to the dining hall after Sa’maia J. Evans ’27 received a dean’s warning for reserving the room because AFRO is an unrecognized student organization.

In a Friday evening email to Evans, Adams House Resident Dean Charles “Chip” Lockwood wrote that unrecognized organizations reserving campus spaces “is in violation of Harvard College policy.”

Lockwood cited the Harvard College Student Handbook, which states that “unrecognized organizations are not permitted to conduct any activity at Harvard even though their activities involve Harvard undergraduates.”

Lockwood did not respond to a request for comment.

He also wrote that any “attempt to go forward with tomorrow’s event in Adams House will result in a referral to the Administrative Board.”

Before Saturday’s meeting began, Evans rang the gong that sits on a second-floor balcony overlooking the dining hall and gave a short speech about the warning she received to everyone eating lunch below.

“It’s not about being unrecognized, it’s about student oppression,” said Evans, from the second-floor balcony. “They can tell us we can’t meet in 217, but what can we do?”

“Meet in the dining hall,” responded fellow AFRO members from the crowd below.

Organizers pulled dining hall tables together, forming a discussion group in back of the dining hall as residents continued eating their lunches.

Evans then opened the meet-

ing by critiquing Harvard’s ban on unrecognized groups, calling the policy “crazy.”

“How many orgs are unrecognized? Like 10 million,” Evans said. “What’s the difference between a bunch of students sitting and talking about an issue that relates to us as students and an unrecognized org?”

going after immigrants. It’s the common enemy who’s funding the genocide, it’s the common enemy who’s pulling everything from higher education.” Williams said. “All of this is being perpetrated by the same force.” In the past, multiple other unrecognized organizations have used Harvard spaces to conduct

Evans accused Lockwood of “saying that I can’t book 217 because I like to meet with my Black friends and talk about political issues.”

“It’s not about being unrecognized, it’s about student repression,” she added.

The group talked for two hours about the state of student activism under the Trump administration’s threats, encouraging attendees to protest together in the face of increasing pressure from the federal government.

William Wahpepah, a tutor in Adams House, attended the event alongside undergraduates. He said he was under the “false impression” that the House was a space for free expression, and that he attended Saturday’s discussion because he thought it was his duty as a tutor to ensure students had spaces to talk freely about issues that matter to them.

“I want you all to know, tap on us,” he said. Prince A. Williams ’25 called on attendees to form a “united front” against the Trump administration’s deportation efforts and attempts to pull universities’ funding.

“It’s the common enemy who’s

meetings, including the Harvard Vote Socialist 2024 campaign and Harvard for Harris. A College spokesperson declined to comment on the event, citing a policy against commenting on student disciplinary matters. For some meeting attendees, the email from Lockwood only strengthened their commitment to continue organizing.

“This isn’t the time to cower — or anything like that,” said Kojo Acheampong ’26, an AFRO organizer. “It’s actually to double down on what our principles are, on what we believe.” After the event, AFRO posted a video on their Instagram page about the email Lockwood had sent to Evans.

“Look at what we saw today when we had this meeting. Where was Chip? Where was University administration? Where was the Ad Board? Nowhere,” Evans said in the video.

“Guess what? The movement is working, and the movement is working, and the movement is steadfast,” she added.

Harvard Places PSC on Probation for Rally

Harvard College placed the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee on probation and banned the organization from hosting public events until July on Wednesday over actions at a Tuesday rally hosted by Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine.

The College also canceled all eight events that the PSC had already scheduled for April, including programming on Palestinian history and culture and an art installation, according to a PSC press release.

Tuesday’s rally — which the PSC publicized on their Instagram account but did not officially host or sponsor — drew roughly 300 attendees, who protested shake-ups at major academic centers and alleged Harvard has complied with “fascism” under the Trump administration.

A College spokesperson wrote that the Tuesday protest broke Harvard’s Campus Use Rules, which state that amplified sound is not “permitted without prior approval” and that protests “must not impede or block ingress or egress to or movement within and around campus buildings.”

The spokesperson also wrote that the protest violated a policy barring recognized student organizations from co-hosting events with unrecognized groups like HOOP. The PSC routinely publicizes rallies hosted by HOOP and other unrecognized student organizations on its Instagram but states that the group does not co-host the events.

In a press release, the PSC claimed the College failed to provide a “substantiated basis” for its

decision, disputing their role in sponsoring Tuesday’s rally. “Their letter merely states that a rally happened and some unauthorized organizations cosponsored it, but it says nothing about what role, if any, the PSC played,” the press release stated. Protesters on Tuesday entered Harvard Yard through Widen-

er Gate, where a Securitas guard checked their Harvard University IDs. Traffic on the Massachusetts Avenue sidewalk slowed to a crawl as passersby stalled behind protesters waiting in line, and several people waited to exit the gate. Once inside the Yard, the protesters gathered around University Hall. Organizers instructed at-

House Door Boxes Elicit Backlash Over Conservative Publication

Nearly 300 students wrote letters to Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana this month, protesting his decision to install mailboxes on student dorms in response to complaints from campus conservative publication the Harvard Salient about distribution restrictions.

The mailboxes — which have now been installed in all upperclassmen Houses — were added after the Salient alleged restrictions on door-to-door magazine distribution amounted to censorship.

The letter writing campaign, organized anonymously, argued students should be able to refuse the delivery of publications.

“Students should not be forced to ‘subscribe’ to anything they do not wish to receive in these doorway inboxes,” the letter states, adding that the investment in door boxes was a “bizarre and unnecessary expenditure of funds.” College spokesperson Jonathan Palumbo declined to comment on the letter, citing a policy against commenting on direct correspondence between students and Dean Khurana.

“Harvard College engages with student organizations on a regular basis to discuss various policies related to the appropriate distribution of materials on campus,” Palumbo wrote.

The College’s decision to install doorboxes followed a months-long lobbying campaign by the Salient, which was told to stop delivering its magazine to dormitories by the Dean of Students Office on behalf of three Houses last winter, citing fire and slip hazards of loose magazines left on the floor.

The publication had several meetings with College administrators before publicly detailing their accusations of anti-conservative bias in Breitbart in January. After the door boxes were announced, the Salient returned to its normal distribution, placing magazines in the baskets rather than on the floor.

But the Salient wasn’t the only organization to use the mailboxes. In at least one House, some pro-Palestine students distributed copies of the Harvard Crimeson, a pro-Palestine publication modeled after The Crimson, to the boxes.

“The front door to a student’s bedroom is not a public opinion forum. Our doors are not a public debate stage,” the letter stated.

The letter, which encouraged students to send an email to College Dean Rakesh Khurana voicing concerns on the mailboxes, was circulated at least one House mailing list.

Rosie P. Couture ’26, who sent the email, said that she did not write the petition herself, but that it was “drafted by Harvard community members who feared retaliation for their names being attached.”

“Personally, I signed and shared the petition because we’ve seen Harvard repeatedly place ‘time and place’ restrictions on free speech,” Couture wrote, referencing the University’s restrictions on protest activity. “Harvard has repeatedly silenced and punished students advocating for Palestine.”

“This is about Harvard caving to right-wing pressure at the expense of students’ safety and fundamental rights,” she wrote. At least three students also attached notes to their doors or mail baskets, asking the Salient to refrain from distributing to their room. Alexander H.

Lee ’27 said his roommate added a sign — which reads “This is a Salient-free household!” — to their door box after they were installed.

Lee explained that the sign was “a joke more than anything” and that he did not expect the Salient’s distributors to follow their request.

“If they do, then they do. If they don’t, they don’t,” Lee said. “Either way, it’s still going in that same corner if we do get it. We’re never going to look at it again, if it’s not going in the trash.”

Despite backlash from some students, others said they appreciated the mailboxes, regardless of the fraught circumstances for their installment.

Though Clifford W. Stowe ’26 said he knows that Harvard has bigger issues to deal with than mailboxes, he said that the mailboxes would help keep loose fliers and magazines organized.

“The mailboxes will help to keep publications and things brought to the door in one place so they’re not just being slipped under the door, which could potentially be hazardous, definitely just kind of annoying,” he said.

Ebun A. Oguntola ’27 said that the mailboxes made her House “seem more like a neighborhood.”

For Margaret J. Buckley ’25, who said she has distributed papers to doors before, the mailboxes give students a place to put papers as opposed to on the hallway floor.

Buckley said the mailboxes allow her to receive information from different types of campus publications — even those she does not share viewpoints with.

“I think it’s just good to have a pulse on what is going around,” she said.

tendees to leave space for people to walk on the path that runs behind the building, but the crowd only left a narrow route through. Protest leaders led chants and gave speeches using a megaphone and sound system they had carried into the Yard. Wednesday’s penalties continue a tense relationship between

the PSC and administrators. The group was placed on probation in March 2024, then suspended in April 2024 for violating protest guidelines regarding the use of space and failing to register an April rally in Harvard Yard.

The group was eventually reinstated in September.

The PSC’s current probation

comes just two weeks after more than 3,500 people — including more than 200 Harvard affiliates — signed an open letter asking Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 to permanently disband the student group, which they accused of antisemitism.

Harvard has also come under increasing pressure to enforce policies limiting unrecognized student organizations — and College Dean Rakesh Khurana encouraged students to report groups which violate the rules in an interview last week.

An organizer for the African and African American Resistance Organization, which is unrecognized, received a warning last week for attempting to reserve a room for the group.

The PSC press release alleged that the College had overstepped the bounds of its existing policies in order to target the group’s programming “within days of the Trump administration’s most overt threats to Harvard and sustained pressure to penalize Palestine organizing.”

The Trump administration has honed in on Harvard’s funding in recent days, suggesting that it could lose access to federal dollars if it does not crack down on what the government describes as rampant antisemitism.

ing a campus environment where free expression thrives requires that members of our community adhere to Harvard’s policies and rules, including those relating to time, place, and manner restrictions,” a College spokesperson wrote in a statement.

samuel.church@thecrimson.com elyse.goncalves@thecrimson.com

Roughly 70 percent of Harvard Law School’s professors accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump in a Saturday night letter to the school’s student body.

The letter, which was signed by 82 of the school’s 118 active professors as of this article’s publication, described Trump’s threats as a danger to the rule of law. It condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over “lawful speech and political activism.”

Nine emeritus professors also joined the statement.

Though interim HLS Dean John C.P. Goldberg was absent from the list of signatories, the letter was signed by most of the Law School’s top leadership. All three of HLS’ deputy deans — I. Glenn Cohen, Maureen E. “Molly” Brady ’08, and John Coates — signed the letter, as did former HLS Dean Martha L. Minow.

“While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described,” the letter stated.

The Trump administration has taken aim at elite law firms in recent weeks, through a series of orders to take away their lawyers’ security clearances and bar them from entering government offices. Three

firms — WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Perkins Coie — have sued to block Trump’s orders. Others — Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom — have opted to negotiate with the administration instead, agreeing to provide tens of millions of dollars in pro bono services to causes favored by Trump.

The White House has accused the firms of abusing the legal system, including “unethical conduct when litigating against the Federal government or pursuing baseless partisan attacks.” Many of the targeted firms had either previously been involved in investigating individuals with ties to the Trump administration or had represented clients who were at odds with Trump.

The impacted firms are all frequent employers of Harvard Law School graduates — and most of them regularly host recruiting events on the school’s campus. More than half of the Law School’s most recent graduating class now works at a big law firm.

The HLS faculty letter slammed both the Trump administration’s threats and firms’ decision to make concessions.

The letter also comes as many international Harvard affiliates express fear about their ability to take public stances on controversial issues. Roughly three weeks ago, former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was detained by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement following his involvement in the school’s pro-Palestine encampment last spring.

Several other students across the country have been detained by law enforcement

since, though no such cases have been reported at Harvard to date. Tufts University Ph.D. student Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen who had written an op-ed urging Tufts to consider a student government resolution accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, was detained last week in Somerville.

The Constitution, the letter said, was “designed” to enable political disagreement without having to fear punishment.

“Neither a law school nor a society can properly function amidst such fear,” the letter continued.

Goldberg’s absence from the letter was especially notable. So far, he — along with the other deans of Harvard’s schools — has declined to take a public stance on the Trump administration’s orders on higher education. He was also not listed on a similar Wednesday joint letter from 79 current and former law school deans, including the law school deans of Cornell University, Georgetown University, and the University of California, Berkeley.

HLS professor Andrew M. Crespo ’05 said this was the first time in his decade as a professor that he had seen 90 colleagues agree “on anything.” Benjamin M. Eidelson, another professor and signatory, wrote in a statement that, “a lot of the people who signed this letter are not big ‘open letter’ people.”

“Speaking for myself, it felt important to level with our students about how alarmed we are and just say outright that this assault on civil liberties and the right to counsel is not normal,” he added.

BY

BY CAROLINE G. HENNIGAN AND BRADFORD D. KIMBALL CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

ANTISEMITISM LAWSUIT

Harvard Pushes Back on Unnamed Plaintiffs

JOHN DOES. Two students asked to join an ongoing Title VI lawsuit against Harvard with pseudonyms.

Harvard filed its opposition in court on Friday to a motion to allow two plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously as they seek to join Harvard Divinity School graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum’s ongoing Title VI lawsuit against the University.

The plaintiffs, Harvard Business School student Yoav Segev and Harvard Law School student Moshe Y. Dembitzer, requested to be identified in the suit only as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, citing fears of retaliation and harassment related to their complaints.

But lawyers for Harvard argued in their opposition that the plaintiffs’ request would unfairly disadvantage the University — and that the use of pseudonyms is unwarranted because the plaintiffs are already publicly associated with the issues in the case.

Harvard’s lawyers also claimed they were not given enough time to respond to the plaintiffs’ request, which was initially granted by a judge on March 21 — less than half an hour after it was filed. Before Harvard filed its opposition, an entry on the electronic docket showed the court had granted the motion for pseudonymity.

But that entry appeared to have been removed, suggesting Harvard will have an opportunity to make its case against the plaintiffs’ pseudonymity in court.

“There have been no withdrawn orders. The docket is currently up to date and accurate,” a docket clerk on the case wrote in an email.

Both Segev and Dembitzer were included as declarants on two Title VI lawsuits against

the University that were settled in January — one from Kestenbaum and the group Students Against Antisemitism and one from the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education.

Though Harvard reached a settlement with both SAA and the Brandeis Center, Kestenbaum has continued to seek litigation under new counsel, and is now filing to add Segev and Dembitzer as plaintiffs in an amended complaint accusing Harvard of “severe and pervasive” antisemitism. In the complaint, Segev and Dembitzer allege that they have faced “harassment” and “physical violence” from students and faculty as a result of their Jewish identities.

In their proposed amended complaint, Segev and Dembitzer asked Harvard to adopt required antisemitism training and enact “disciplinary measures” — including firing, suspension, and expulsion — against affiliates “responsible for the antisemitic abuse permeating the school.”

The Crimson has chosen to identify both Segev and Dembitzer because there is a compelling public interest in naming the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to change Harvard’s policies and disciplinary enforcement. Both students are known on Harvard’s campus for their involvement in pro-Israel activism, including in high-profile incidents that figure centrally in the suit.

Segev — referred to in court documents as John Doe #1 — was involved in a widely reported altercation with pro-Palestine protesters at an Oct. 18, 2023, “die-in,” according to filings by his lawyers. At the demonstration, organizers attempted to cover Segev’s camera with security vests and keffiyehs as he filmed protesters, shouting “shame” as he left.

The incident brought widespread critical attention to the University and led to ongoing

criminal proceedings against two of the protesters involved, who are now facing assault and battery charges. A judge dismissed hate crime charges against the students.

In filings supporting the motion to proceed pseudonymously, Segev and his lawyers argued that he faced retaliation and harassment as a result of the incident, claiming he was “doxxed” in a Boston Globe article.

The plaintiffs cite the October protest in their complaint against the University as evidence for their allegation that “Harvard students and faculty harass, discriminate, and assault Jewish students.”

Harvard’s Friday opposition cited multiple articles in the Globe and The Harvard Crimson that identified Segev by name, though his name was redacted from the quotes included in court filings.

“Plaintiff John Doe #1 has been identified in several news reports as having been involved in the October 18 incident central to his allegations in the Complaint,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote.

Dembitzer — referred to in the documents as John Doe #2 — was accused by peers of doxxing them by sharing screenshots of a Zoom chat from a March 29, 2024, student government meeting, according to a filing by his lawyers. The screenshots — where students discussed a resolution to divest from Israel — were shared on the X account @StopAntisemitism.

Dembitzer has repeatedly denied the allegations, writing in his declaration, “Individuals exposed for their antisemitic comments quickly accused me of sharing screenshots of the antisemitic chat with StopAntisemitism, falsely claiming that I had ‘doxed’ them. I did not.”

A formal complaint submitted by a Law School student to Harvard in spring 2024 and obtained by The Crimson accused Dembitzer of violating the Uni -

versity’s anti-bullying policies by sharing screenshots from the March 29, 2024, student government meeting online.

Dembitzer’s lawyers described protests outside the Law School Dean of Students Office in March 2024, where they said students called for his expulsion following the doxxing allegations, according to the proposed amended complaint.

Dembitzer cited the protests against him in his declaration as an example of how he had been “directly targeted with antisemitism on campus.”

Segev and Dembitzer’s lawyers argue in the motion to proceed pseudonymously that, because both plaintiffs were involved in these past incidents, they “reasonably fear for their safety,” a justification for not litigating under their names.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and an expert in pseudonymity in litigation, courts typically consider a number of factors when deciding whether to grant

pseudonymity, including “risk of retaliatory harm,” “fairness to the defendants,” and “the public interest in being able to get information about a case.”

But generally, Volokh said, courts presume that parties should participate under their own names.

He said granting pseudonymity to plaintiffs in a suit can make it significantly harder to litigate — especially in cases that go to trial.

“It’s possible to have a trial where the plaintiff is under a pseudonym,” Volokh said. “It’s just a lot harder in many ways.”

“The First Circuit makes plain that proceeding behind a pseudonym can occur only in exceptional circumstances,” Phil Brown, principal attorney at Brown Counsel, LLC, wrote in an emailed statement, referring to the judicial circuit that includes Massachusetts.

Lawyers for Harvard argued that Segev and Dembitzer fail to adequately support their claims — used to justify the motion — that being named publicly would likely lead to ha -

rassment or retaliation and potentially deter other students from coming forward with similar allegations. They also claimed that granting pseudonymity would make it more difficult for Harvard to litigate the case by potentially stymying discovery requests, in addition to potentially damaging the University’s reputation. The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that their interest in remaining unnamed outweighed the public’s interest in transparency, Harvard argued. Both Segev and Dembitzer remained unnamed as declarants in the SAA and Brandeis suits. But the standards for pseudonymity are more stringent now that Segev and Dembitzer are moving to join the case as plaintiffs, according to Volokh, since they would then be parties to the case. A judge has yet to approve the amended complaint adding Segev and Dembitzer to the suit.

sebastian.connolly@thecrimson.com

A group of 17 U.S. senators demanded the release of Harvard Medical School researcher Kseniia Petrova, who was detained in Boston Logan Airport after a personal trip to France in February, in a Monday letter. Petrova allegedly failed to declare frog embryos she brought into the country and was detained by Customs and Border Police. Her J-1 scholar visa was revoked by officials for failure to declare an object at customs — a violation which can result in an up to $500 fine and the object’s seizure. But Petrova’s lawyer has stated that this does not grant CBP the au -

thority to cancel her visa.

The letter — addressed to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd M. Lyons — included signatures from Massachusetts senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey.

“We are deeply concerned about the possibility that Petrova could face persecution if deported to Russia,” they wrote. “We urge the Administration to ensure full due process in her case and take all appropriate and necessary measures to ensure she is not deported to Russia.”

Petrova was arrested in Russia in 2022 after her involvement in protests against the country’s war in Ukraine, including calling for the impeachment of President Vladimir Putin on her Facebook account.

The senators wrote that Petrova said she was fearful of being forced to return to Russia when speaking to CBP officers.

“I am scared to go back to Russia,” she said, according to the letter. “I am afraid the Rus -

sian Federation will kill me for protesting against them.”

Petrova holds a Schengen visa, which would allow her to stay in European Union countries for at least 90 days if she is forced to leave the United States.

At the time of her arrest on Feb. 16, Petrova was told that she could either return to France and reapply for a visa or face deportation to Russia, with a five-year ban on returning to the U.S. Petrova chose to return to France, but CBP officers detained her after she voiced her fear of political persecution in Russia. She is currently being held in an ICE facility in Louisiana.

“Petrova is reportedly being held with at least 70 other

detainees in the same cell,” the senators wrote in the letter.

Senators demanded that Petrova be released ahead of her May 7 preliminary hearing, “absent evidence that Petrova is a flight risk or a danger to the community.”

“We strongly urge you to reconsider ICE’s recent decision not to grant Petrova parole and exercise discretion within your authority to release her from detention while her asylum case is pending,” they wrote. The senators also noted that Petrova is facing extended detention, as she has already been housed in the facility for more than a month. They wrote that although the hearing is set for early May, “her case could continue for months after that.”

The letter comes as interna -

tional students across the country are being detained by ICE for their support of pro-Palestine causes on campus. At the University of Alabama, Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran, was detained on Tuesday at 5 a.m. in his home. And last week, Tufts PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk — an international student from Turkey — was detained by ICE. Her detention sparked outrage from Massachusetts lawmakers who are condemning her arrest. Two weeks prior, Columbia student protester Mahmoud Khalil — a green card holder — was taken into custody by federal agents.

Harvard School of Public Health professor Brittany M. Charlton joined a lawsuit against the National Institutes of Health on Wednesday, alleging that the Trump administration’s cuts to equity-related research grants violated the Fifth Amendment and required Congressional approval. The suit — which also named the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ’76, and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya as defendants — was also filed by the American Public Health Association, the United Automobile Workers, and three other researchers facing

frozen or terminated grants. Charlton, who studies reproductive health in LGBTQ adolescents and heads the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence, has seen five of her NIH grants cut. The future of the Harvard center remains unclear following the funding cuts, which totaled $4.2 million. On top of two previously canceled grants, the loss amounted to 95 percent of its funding.

“Ending these NIH grants wastes taxpayer money and years of hard work to answer the world’s most pressing biomedical questions,” Charlton said in a press release. “This is an attack on scientific progress itself.”

The total funding cuts for all of Charlton’s research projects are expected to be more than $9 million.

The suit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, challenges the abrupt termination of all grants and applications following new directives from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which halted funding for research involving gender identity, diversity, COVID-19, and vaccines.

The agency claimed that such research “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”

The lawsuit cited seven counts of violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations. It alleged that Trump administration’s cuts to NIH-funded research are part of “a reckless and illegal purge” that directly affects “topics and populations they disfavor.”

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and other gropus. They are seeking

Cancelling grants solely due to political ideology has severe public health consequences and violates

to have the NIH grants restored and the recent actions deemed unconstitutional.

“Cancelling grants solely due to political ideology has severe public health consequences and violates the law,” Jessie J. Rossman, the legal director of

the Massachusetts ACLU, said.

The complaint alleged the termination of the grants was political in nature. Some termination notices were drafted by members of the Department of Government Efficiency, billionaire Elon Musk’s slash-andburn cost-cutting initiative, according to the complaint.

The complaint states that plaintiffs have “suffered extensive harm from Defendants’ unlawful actions.” Many of those named in the filing, including Charlton, have seen their research teams face potential cancellation and patients lose access to medical treatments.

Charlton was forced to fire the center’s director, cancel appointments with research subjects, and wind down projects.

The funding cuts have also affected Charlton’s salary and pay for 18 other researchers. The lawsuit argued the grant cancellation is a violation of the NIH’s congressional mandate to support research in the medical field that studies diverse populations and underrepresented groups, including women, minorities, and LGBTQ people. The future of Charlton’s research remains unclear and has faced immense setbacks. Her research studies the impact of legislation bills on mental health of the LGBTQ population and the health of children born to LGBQ women. The U.S. District Court for Massachusetts has assigned the case to judge Brian E. Murphy, nominated by President Joseph R. Biden.

claire.jiang@thecrimson.com rauf.nawaz@thecrimson.com megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com frances.yong@thecrimson.com

On Friday, Harvard filed its opposition against a motion to allow two plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously in an ongoing Title VI lawsuit against the University. JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

If Harvard Won’t Stand Up, Who Will?

STANDING UP. In the face of an unprecedented and unrelenting attack on higher education, the University must take more decisve action. Because if Harvard can’t, who else will?

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

In the face of the gravest threat to higher education of our lifetimes, Harvard has gone fetal.

On Monday, the Trump administration announced a review of over $8 billion of Harvard’s federal funding as part of an ongoing investigation by the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. That evening, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 followed up with a conciliatory email entitled “Our Resolve.”

To which we feel compelled to ask: What resolve exactly?

At every turn of the second Trump era, Harvard has followed the path of least resistance. The newest wave of federal funding threats should remind University leaders that obedience doesn’t make us any safer — but collective action could.

Let’s take stock of Harvard’s strategy over the last four months. In the midst of inauguration day, the University hired a lobbying firm helmed by a veteran of the Trump campaign and adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism wholly at odds with its commitment to academic freedom.

Over just the last week, the University made headlines for firing top leaders at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and suspending its ties with one of the foremost universities in the West Bank. All the while, it kept conspicuously quiet as international students were disappeared by immigration authorities nationwide.

Now, Harvard has topped off its capitulation campaign with President Garber’s mealy-mouthed email pledging to engage with the White House’s highly suspect claims about addressing antisemitism. Of course, we don’t yet know how this highstakes extortion racket will play out. But we’ve seen the prequel to this movie before. Columbia University — which had taken a harsh approach to student protests — was one of the first victims of the feder-

al government’s ransom-act. With $400 million in federal grants and contracts hanging in the balance, Columbia’s leadership bared their bellies to the Trump administration, hastily agreeing to a host of new policies dictated to them by the White House.

What do they have to show for it? Not $400 million, which the Trump administration has yet to return, but their fourth president in just a few years — this one snatched straight from the school’s top governing board.

Acquiescence offers no guarantee of security for Harvard, or any other university for that matter. And even if it had half a hope of panning out for us — what about the fate of higher education as a whole?

The Trump administration is launching a barely

disguised crusade against colleges across the country. Whether the pretext is antisemitism, like at Harvard, or transgender athletics in the case of the University of Pennsylvania, the basic blueprint is clear. And by complying one-by-one with the shakedown apparatus, higher education is playing right into Trump’s hands.

So instead of lining up like dominoes ready to be felled by a hostile White House, Harvard and other universities must join arms and stand firm. As part of the bedrock of a functioning democracy, higher education has an obligation to resist this authoritarian assault.

In practice, Harvard could lead a coalition of universities that pools money to help weather future

Appeasing Trump Damages Harvard and America

BY RYAN D. ENOS AND STEVEN LEVITSKY

e all knew it was coming.

WAuthoritarian governments — of the left, right, and center — attack universities because they are influential centers of dissent. President Donald Trump and his allies, who never hid their intentions, are doing the same. Columbia was the first target. Left by other universities to fend for itself (Harvard remained silent), Columbia’s leadership capitulated. Emboldened by its success, the administration has moved on to Harvard.

This is not a policy fight. It is, in the words of conservative commentator (and Harvard alum) Bill Kristol ’73, an “authoritarian” offensive. Having weaponized the machinery of government, the administration is systematically deploying public agencies — from the Justice Department and the FBI to the IRS and the Department of Education — to weaken rivals and bully civil society into submission or silence. This is how elected autocrats consolidated power in Hungary, Russia, Turkey, and elsewhere.

Extortion has become the Trump administration’s modus operandi. In the case of universities, the administration threatens to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in research money, demanding that private universities allow the federal government to dictate how they govern themselves, discipline students, and define and regulate academic freedom.

The administration likely seeks to impose tight restrictions on student association and protest and implement measures that clearly limit institutional independence. Such demands attack Harvard’s core academic mission and the basic principles of a democratic society.

The Trump administration has cloaked its attack on Harvard in civil rights rules, justifying its attack on the grounds that Harvard has failed to combat antisemitism.Not only is this a pretext, pure and simple, but it is gaslighting.

Antisemitism is a problem, but it is not more acute — indeed, it is likely less acute — at Harvard than in most institutions in American society (including, for example, the Republican Party). And given Trump and his allies’ record of tolerating, flirting with, and even embracing various antise -

mitic figures, the idea that the administration cares about combating antisemitism is simply not believable.

Nor should one take seriously the notion that the Trump administration cares about civil rights when it is extralegally arresting and imprisoning students such as Tufts’ Rumeysa Ozturk for their political speech. Authoritarians always find pretexts for attacking universities. Harvard is clearly being targeted for political reasons. We suspect that the University leadership knows this.

Nevertheless, President Alan M. Garber’s Mar. 31 letter to the Harvard community embraced the Trump administration’s faulty premise that the issue is antisemitism. Apparently believing that apologizing and surrendering to authoritarian bullying will spare it more abuse, Harvard’s leadership is lending credibility to claims they know to be pretexts and inviting harm to the University. Rather than defending higher education and democracy, they are emboldening and strengthening their attackers.

At a moment when we desperately need civil society’s leaders to stand up to authoritarianism, Harvard’s administration has opted to stand down.

Harvard’s abdication of civic leadership will harm us in two important respects. First, the University is abandoning its own values to appease an authoritarian government. University leaders have repeatedly claimed to defend academic freedom but dismissed — under a pretext — the leadership of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, cut Harvard’s sponsorship of a public health program in the occupied Palestinian territories, suspended programming on peace in the Middle East, and taken a series of steps to restrict student expression.

These measures undermine academic freedom, the bedrock value of universities in a free society, thus threatening irreparable harm to the very thing Harvard claims to be defending. University leaders claim they have their own reasons for adopting these measures, but given how similar they are to the Trump administration’s demands of Columbia, such claims are not believable.

Second, Harvard’s abdication will also do harm beyond its gates. It will embolden the Trump administration, whose extortionary attacks are clearly working. It will also contribute to the erosion of our society’s overall capacity to resist Trump’s authoritarian offensive. As universities, law firms, CEOs, media outlets, and civil society organizations retreat to the sidelines, silencing themselves and curbing civic activism, America’s democratic defenses weaken.

Finally, Harvard’s surrender will likely have a demoralizing effect on the rest of society. If America’s most powerful and privileged institutions cannot — or will not — stand up to Trump, what can everyday citizens expect to do?

Last week, more than 800 Harvard faculty members signed a letter urging the Harvard Corporation to fight back against the ongoing attacks on higher education (in a telling sign of the times, dozens of faculty members expressed support for the letter but told us they were afraid to sign because they feared government reprisal). Hundreds of alumni have done the same. Students have expressed repeatedly in the pages of The Crimson and recently in protests on campus calling on the University to take a stand. The authoritarian attack on universities has come for us. Harvard, like American society as a whole, has the muscle to push back. But our leaders appear to lack the will. Alternative paths exist. Princeton University President Christopher L. Eisgruber, whose university faces similar threats, has declared his determination not to comply with Trump’s demands. There is still time to correct a course that we will likely come to regret. Future generations may well look back upon this moment and ask what we did when an authoritarian government came for our University and for our country. Efforts to appease authoritarians often fail, and history rarely remembers them well. Harvard’s leadership should listen to its faculty and the many students and alumni urging it to stand up for its values — and for democracy.

Trump Claims His Funding Cuts Help Jews — He’s Wrong.

Iserved as Harvard Hillel president in 2023, the year antisemitism erupted on Harvard’s campus. I saw up close how reductive and simplistic, how vitriolic and bigoted, discourse around Israel became on campus, and during the toughest moments of my life, I led the fight against it. For officials in Washington, the past year and a half justifies a review of Harvard’s federal funding. But as a student elected by my peers to represent Jewish interests — and who witnessed antisemitism on campus first-hand — I know that President Donald Trump’s review of University funding has the potential to appreciably damage higher education, and ironically, Harvard’s Jewish life too.

Tragically, I am no stranger to antisemitism and anti-Zionism here at Harvard. I disgustedly watched my peers’ flippant attitudes towards the heinous loss of life on October 7th, scrolled through Sidechat to read antisemitic screeds, and watched in dismay as my classmates posted an antisemitic cartoon so noxious it was displayed in a

textbook on the subject.

I’ve also been on the front lines speaking out against bigoted beliefs while contesting my classmates’ naively anti-Zionist narratives about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I went on CNN, NBC, ABC, and Fox. I gave quotes to the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Jewish Insider. I spoke at vigils, worked with Jewish students, and talked to more administrators than I can count — from the Associate Dean of Students up to the University president.

For speaking out about antisemitism, I’ve been accused of spreading “violent lies,” faced calls for the boycott of Harvard Hillel, and received hate mail. Though I don’t speak for all Jews, I am profoundly aware of the difficulties Jewish and Zionist students face on our polarized campus.

Despite my deep disappointment with many of my peers’ recent behavior, blanket federal funding cuts will inevitably fail to solve our University’s problems. For one, antisemitism on campus is largely a cultural issue that is difficult to solve with administrative action; punishing the University for speech it cannot control is unfair.

Moreover, unless funding rollbacks are targeted, the impact of sweeping cuts will be felt throughout the University. Objectively important academic endeavors like cancer research, economic policy study, and artificial intelligence scholarship are almost surely threatened by these broad fiscal slashes.

The expansive nature of these billion-dollar cuts suggest Trump’s interest is not narrowly fighting antisemitism on campus, but rather neutering universities and their ability to conduct research. Institutions of higher learning are cornerstones of liberal democracies and act as bulwarks against authoritarianism. It is telling that Trump’s team wants them demolished.

Indeed, Vice President JD Vance gave a now-infamous speech three years ago entitled “The Universities are The Enemy” — long before October 7th brought antisemitism so prominently to the surface of many university campuses.

As the assault on higher education proceeds, politicians are seizing on Jews as their perfect political pawns. Let me be clear: I’ve had dozens of meetings with various University officials.

Never once have I been approached by a current Trump official and never once, to my knowledge, has the Trump administration consulted Jewish student leadership in any formal way. Anyone familiar with campus life knows funding cuts will have little effect on Jews’ experience at Harvard — besides degrading the quality of research and instruction. Worse, they could set back research significantly and destabilize the academy, one of the institutions in which Jews have historically thrived. If fixing antisemitism were as simple as denying federal funding to institutions in which it spreads, the world could have solved this millenia-old hatred long ago. Unfortunately, the solution is not so simple. It is easy to tear the University down under the guise of combating antisemitism. It is harder — but much more noble — to build it up.

–Jacob M. Miller ’25, a former Crimson Editorial chair, is a double concentrator in Mathematics and Economics in Lowell House. He served as Harvard Hillel president in 2023.

Trump’s Funding Threats Are an Affront To Jewish Values

BY ABIGAIL CHACHKES

In President Donald Trump’s assault on higher education, the safety of Jewish students has been his primary alibi.

Two days ago, the Trump Administration began reviewing billions of dollars of Harvard’s federal funding in reprimand of the University’s handling of antisemitism. In the context of recent funding cuts from the University of Pennsylvania and administrative concessions from Columbia University, we must not be naive to the fact that this review is a pretext to undermine academic freedom at Harvard. But funding cuts would not merely be an abnormal and frightening degradation of Harvard’s scholarly mission. They would also be discordant with Jewish values.

Talking heads of the MAGA movement — including Steve Bannon — have unabashedly communicated their ravenous desire to plunder elite universities of all federal funding. At Columbia, Trump imper-

iled funding under the guise of fighting antisemitism. But at Penn, threats to $175 million worth of funding related to transgender athletes.

The ubiquity of funding cuts across issues, coupled with influential Republicans’ explicit loathing of higher education, suggests that yesterday’s decision was not carefully crafted with the idiosyncratic needs of Jewish students in mind, but rather was a brute force weapon in Trump’s callous war against universities.

I cannot speak for Columbia, but the genuine prominence of antisemitism at Harvard does not justify crippling the financial health and independence of research. Coverage of antisemitism here has been a disingenuous spectacle that does not distinguish between legitimate claims of harassment, insensitive yet not bigoted rhetoric, and natural discomfort from students who encounter harsh but genuinely insightful criticisms of Israel.

Certainly, no matter their relationship to Zionism, few of the Jewish students I know regard the problem as severe enough to browbeat Harvard out

of a nonpartisan relationship to billions in academic funding.

But to those who nevertheless believe these sanctions are warranted for the sake of Jewish students, I urge you to consider how incongruous cuts would be with Judaism’s own intellectual values.

In Judaism, rigorous scholarship is sacrosanct. Age-old Jewish tradition teems with a robust intellectual spirit. In my upbringing as a Modern Orthodox Jew, the religion’s erudite accomplishments inspired me. Beyond being remarkable rabbis, the ideological architects of my childhood — from Maimonides to the Rav — were also remarkable scholars.

My formal schooling was subsumed by a religious imperative to adore learning and to regard it as a divinely created mechanism of the human mind. From a young age, I balanced secular studies with studies of the Bible in its original Hebrew, numerous medieval commentaries of exegesis, Modern Hebrew language, and Jewish law.

These religious voices frequently differed. Ju-

daism derives the bulk of its rulings from painstaking and brutal debate, rather than passive dogmatism. The entire Talmud, from which halachic Jewish law is largely derived, consists of dispute after dispute. Our texts treat the pursuit of knowledge with perennial enthusiasm. Even if I have wavered in faith, I have an expansive pride in Judaism that springs from its treatment of learning and education as something core to Jewish existence, as something beautiful in addition to sacred. There is no pride in antisemitism’s role in Harvard’s federal funding investigation.

If Harvard’s funding is slashed, antisemitism will have been scapegoated to debilitate vital scientific research with consequences that are wholly independent from the safety of Jewish students. If Harvard compromises through any degree of concessions, then antisemitism will have been leveraged to sweep true academic independence into Trump’s pocket. Centering Judaism in this authoritarian attack on universities simply does not treat its promotion of intellectual vitality with care. When considering our core values, it is truly perverse.

One week from Saturday, we will partake in a Passover seder. As we slosh syrupy Manischewitz into our hungry bellies and sting our throats purple with horseradish, we will reach Maggid and retell portions of the Passover story. We will tell the tale of the Four Sons. Together, we will reach the Wicked Son, the Son who spits on Judaism, who agitates against salvation. The Son who inquires in bad faith, “how do God’s miracles serve you?”

But most importantly, we will see that this Son was still included at the seder. Among the likes of his lesser-wicked brothers, he is provided equal opportunity to speak his words, to be engaged with and learned from, in his own way. This is the Judaism I know, a religion with a near boundless appetite for opportunities to teach, a religion that derives merit from seating all sons at the table.

Do not treat this particular handicapping of academic integrity — even if you are enraged about antisemitism — as anything but antithetical to Jewish tradition. At this coming seder, as we speak of the Four Sons, remember that we are conferring value on intellectual robustness, a task that we cherish, a task that we are commanded to do for

JACOB M. MILLER

JULIAN J. GIORDANO— CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

JULIAN J. GIORDANO— CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Churches Fill Gaps in Housing Assistance

centers, to identify when there were families falling through the cracks,” Hannah Hafter, an organizer at Episcopal City Mission, said.

For the past four months, an immigrant mother from Uganda and her two children have slept in the basement of an Episcopal church in the Greater Boston area.

The woman, granted anonymity by The Crimson due to deportation concerns, left Uganda after her husband was killed for his membership in the opposition party. She fled the country with one of her six children, giving birth to another child during her journey to the United States.

“I lived in Belize for some time, and then I had to continue to Guatemala, from Guatemala to Mexico, then to America,” she said.

After arriving in Massachusetts, she was immediately placed in a Temporary Respite Center in Cambridge — a state-run shelter for Emergency Assistance eligible families that could not be immediately placed in a traditional EA unit.

But after two months, she and her children were forced to leave as the TRC shut its doors. As state funding for temporary centers expires, TRCs across Massachusetts are closing — leaving families without state housing support.

The Ugandan woman eventually received housing for herself and her children through the Episcopal City Mission — an organization that connects families with congregations who can offer housing and basic necessities.

As the state works to adapt and find alternative solutions to divert families from shelters, a network of nearly a dozen churches in the Greater Boston Area has collaborated with the Brazilian Workers Center — an immigrant support and advocacy organization— to fill in the gaps.

“We began working with the Brazilian Workers Center, which runs one of the family welcome

‘The Beginning of the End’ In 2023, Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey ’92 issued a State of Emergency, citing the state’s diminished capacity to meet the needs of the increasing population of unhoused individuals.

“I would say that that was the beginning of the end of the guarantee to the right to shelter for eligible families,” Andrea M. Park, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute director of community driven advocacy, said. As a result of the state of emergency, Healey limited Massachusetts’ right to shelter by imposing a cap of 7,500 families in the staterun Emergency Assistance program, leaving dozens of families on waitlists for shelters, without a place to stay.

The TRCs were created after advocacy groups, including MLRI, pressured the state to provide families on the waitlist with alternatives in response to the cap.

“If you’re going to have a waiting list, you have to have a place people can stay in the meantime,” Park said. “They can’t just be sitting outside on the sidewalk with their children.” TRCs are not traditional shelters. They are large congregate sites, like gymnasiums, not originally designed to house families. During her time in the Quincy TRC, the Ugandan woman and her children showered in exterior mobile bathrooms, which served the 80 residents of the shelter.

“It was extremely hard because the weather was cold, taking children outside to take shower —- and when they come back, they will be coughing, sneezing,” she said.

But in July 2024, the situation became more challenging for families after the state limited stays in TRCs to five days. This policy has since been changed to 30 business days, with the option to apply for an extension.

“Whatever situation you are in,

if you reach the time limit and you don’t get an extension, you are exited from the shelter,” Park said. “If you do not leave on the day you are supposed to leave, then you cannot come back for, I believe, a year.”

With the cap on the number of families in EA shelters and the 30day limit on the TRCs, many families with children were forced to sleep in Boston Logan Airport.

The number of immigrant families eligible for the EA program has declined due to the nine-month stay limit on EA shelters and changes in federal immigration regulations — many of which were introduced by Former President Joe Biden in June 2024. Despite the decrease, advocates are still concerned about the reduced capacity.

“I can’t over emphasize how big a deal this is,” Park said of the reduced capacity.“We’re saying that you’re going to be found eligible, but you’re going to have to stay in a large room on cots with other people.”

‘A Safety Net’

As families struggle to find housing in the state, the BWC created a net-

Mass. Lawmakers Condemn Harvard Funding Review

a problem that deserves a real and forceful response,” Markey wrote. “But the answer to antisemitism will never be authoritarianism.”

Top Massachusetts lawmakers showed outrage and gave dire warnings in response to Monday’s announcement that three federal agencies are reviewing nearly $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding.

“We must call it out for what it is: authoritarianism,” Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey wrote in a statement. “We cannot guarantee freedom if we let Trump march in and steal freedom while we remain silent.” Massachusetts State Representative Marjorie C. Decker echoed Markey’s concerns, writing in a statement that the Trump administration’s actions against “universities, health care, life sciences, public education, and other sectors,” are “a tool used by authoritarian governments to intimidate, punish, and coerce.”

“The rapid fire of executive actions and the constant fear of threat is meant to wear people down and force them into submission,” Decker added.

The funding review comes as part of an ongoing investigation into the University by the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, launched by the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the United States General Services Administration. The review will include more than $8 billion in “multi-year grant commitments” as well as more than $255 million in contracts.

Markey wrote that the federal government is using antisemitism as “blackmail to force institutions into silence.”

“We have a serious antisemitism problem in the United States —

A spokesperson for Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey ’92 wrote that “there is absolutely no tolerance for antisemitism in Massachusetts” and the state’s universities are “working hard to make sure all students feel safe on their campuses.”

“Governor Healey believes the Trump Administration should be working with schools on this, not threatening funding cuts that will hurt our students and economy,” the spokesperson wrote.

The Trump Administration pulled $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University in early March, four days after they received a letter of similar nature. Soon after funding was cut, Columbia caved to the demands outlined in the original letter, including changes to disciplinary policies and placing its Middle Eastern, African, and South Asian studies programs under the control of University administration. Columbia’s response elicited massive backlash and the interim president’s resignation.

In light of funding uncertainty, the University has already taken measures to prepare for the impact of the Trump administration. In early March, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76, announced a hiring freeze while the Faculty of Arts and Sciences asked its leadership not to increase spending in the next fiscal year.

In response to the letter, Harvard President Alan Garber said he would work with the Trump administration in an email sent to students hours after the funding review was announced.

“We will engage with members of the federal government’s task

force to combat antisemitism to ensure that they have a full account of the work we have done and the actions we will take going forward to combat antisemitism,” he wrote.

Tensions in the Massachusetts legislature have also risen in response to the arrest of Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk last week by federal immigration officers last week over her pro-Palestine advocacy. Ozturk was detained by a group of masked, plainclothes officers, and her arrest was called a “five-alarm fire” by Representative Ayanna S. Pressley (D-Mass.) this week.

Markey wrote that the government is “routinely violating the Constitution and laws passed by Congress in order to do as it wishes—all while using antisemitism as a rationale for its transgressions.”

U. S. Representative and Minority Whip Katherine M. Clark wrote in a statement that Trump’s funding across the nation will have detrimental effects on Massachusetts.

“These sweeping cuts will have a ripple effect across Massachusetts and the country: halting vital research, slowing our response to climate change, delaying a cure to cancer, and preventing the next generation of students from accessing opportunities,” Clark wrote in a statement.

Decker echoed these concerns, writing that she has already seen firsthand how funding cuts can impact these sectors.

“We are seeing the impacts in state government, where the Department of Public Health is losing millions of dollars in CDC grant funding and local nonprofits continue to reach out because they have lost critical funding due to serving immigrant, queer, and BIPOC communities,” she wrote.

work of nearly 200 “host families” — including churches and individuals — to house immigrant families in the Boston Metro Area.

The BWC Host family network has operated since the fall of 2023, and was created as a “safety net” for families who were waiting for a call from a local shelter.

“Previously, there were a lot of families sleeping at Boston Logan and South Station, and the state was recognizing that, ‘Oh, hey, this is an emergency, we need to create resources for these families,’” Safi Chalfin-Smith, who runs the BWC Host family program, said. “That’s where the concept of the family welcome center was born.”

The BWC receives funding from the state government, and only aids families that are Emergency Assistance eligible — meaning the families are unhoused through no fault of their own. The majority of families in the program are immigrants.

While the majority of hosts are individuals, BWC has seen increased participation from churches in the last several months due to changing shelter policies.

SHAWN

Massachusetts State Rep. Marjorie C. Decker called on Cambridge City Councilor Paul F. Toner to resign in a Thursday statement, increasing the pressure on the embattled local official to leave City Hall.

“In order to ensure that the focus remains on the needs of victims and the future prevention of sex trafficking in our communities, I believe that Councillor Toner’s ability to serve in his current capacity is compromised beyond reconciliation,” Decker wrote in an Instagram post.

The representative previously condemned Toner’s alleged participation in a highend brothel network operating in Cambridge during a community town hall last week, but did not call on him to resign.

Decker, who represents most of Harvard’s campus, is now the second member of Cambridge’s state delegation to call for Toner’s resignation. She joins fellow Rep. Mike L. Connolly, who has been very public in calling for Toner’s resignation since the Councilor was charged.

Toner was charged with sexual conduct for a fee after a police report found he allegedly patronized the brothel network at least 13 times throughout 2023.

The ringleaders of the brothel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to persuade, induce, entice and coerce one or more individuals to travel interstate to engage in prostitution, with one sentenced to four years in prison.

Andrew M. Paven, a spokesperson for Toner, declined to

“People are looking for ways to get involved as a community and building community is one way to really fight back against injustices,” she said. “We really just look to harness this interest and increase in wanting to help, into positive change, into actually helping.”

ECM learned at least 40 people, including children, were sleeping outside the Wollaston MBTA station, and they started working with the BWC to identify families without a place to sleep.

“Many of our grassroots partners asked us, as an advocacy organization that worked with churches, if any of our churches might be open to providing shelter,” Hafter, the ECM organizer, said.

ECM then contacted various houses of worship in the greater Boston area to ask them if they could host families. Nearly a dozen churches said they would help — including the church that currently houses the Ugandan woman.

According to a volunteer at the church, the congregation was moved by their faith to help the families. The church provides housing, as well as coordinating

donations, providing translators, and helping source resources and food.

“The host family program is one way that we’re able to rapidly stabilize and house families when there might not be capacity in a shelter or a family might not have yet received a shelter placement call,” Chaflin-Smith said. The Healey administration continues to work to address the problem by helping immigrants get work authorizations and dedicating a team at the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development to help shelter residents find jobs.

Though these efforts have tripled the number of successful exits from shelters in the state, Chaflin-Smith said that the host family program still plays an important role in helping EA eligible families.

“It’s a really important system and a safety net for these families who are trying to get into the shelter system,” she added.

comment on Decker’s Thursday calls for Toner’s resignation.

Decker’s statement centered on the sex trafficking — which is defined as the “recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age” by the U.S. Department of Justice.

“We cannot continue to talk about the people who buy sex without recognizing the women on the other side of the transaction. Sex trafficking can only exist when there are people who are willing to buy sex,” Decker wrote. She also emphasized the need to address the coercion of women involved in the brothel network.

“While the women in this case are nameless and faceless, we need to continue to remember and center their humanity,” Decker wrote. “Research consistently shows that between 84% and 87% of women who sell their bodies for sex world -

wide report feeling they have no choice in the matter.”

The pressure for Toner to resign has continued to build, with Decker’s statement adding to ongoing criticism from residents and elected officials. Decker’s updated statement comes after Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern changed course on the issue, calling on Toner to resign on Wednesday night after previously falling short of doing so.

Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui and Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler have also called on Toner to resign. Only one Councilor — Catherine “Cathie” Zusy — has come to Toner’s aid to argue that he should maintain his position. At the end of her statement, Decker argued that the community must come together to prevent an instance such as this from happening again.

“It is critical that we continue to raise awareness and educate our community to prevent exploitation like this from happening again,” she added.

CPD To Spend $600K on New Guns

Lawmakers Call For Tufts Student Release

Mass.

BY MEGAN L. BLONIGEN AND FRANCES Y. YONG CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Top Mass. lawmakers are calling for the release of Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk following her arrest by federal immigration officers on the street last week over her pro-Palestine advocacy.

Rep. Ayanna S. Pressley (D-Mass.) called Ozturk’s arrest a “five-alarm fire” in a Monday statement. The grad student, a 30-yearold Turkish international PhD student and Fulbright Scholar, is currently being held in a detention facility in southern Louisiana.

“Rumeysa Ozturk is a peaceful protestor, grad student, and my constituent who has had her constitutional rights to due process and free speech ripped away,” Pressley wrote. “This unlawful and authoritarian behavior is unacceptable and she must be released immediately.”

Ozturk was on her way to meet friends to break her Ramadan fast when she was detained by a group of masked, plainclothes officers. The video of her arrest, captured by a neighbor’s security camera footage, has been widely circulated on social media.

Since Ozturk’s detention, fears have increased that similar politically-fueled detentions may come to Harvard’s campus, and administrators have released “knowyour-rights” guidance and immigration services to the student body since.

Mass. Senator Elizabeth A. Warren (D-Mass.), who lives just two miles away from Tufts’ campus, also condemned the student’s arrest in a Monday statement, writing that she was “deeply disturbed.”

“The Trump administration is ripping students like Rumeysa out of their communities without due process and undermining our basic freedoms,” Warren wrote. “Rep. Pressley, Sen. Markey, and I led over 30 of our colleagues in demanding answers, and we’re staying on this.”

On Thursday, 34 congressional Democrats sent a letter to several members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet responsible for immigration calling for the restoration of Ozturk’s visa and her release from detention.

“The rationale for this arrest appears to be this student’s expression of her political views,” the lawmakers wrote. “We are calling for full due process in this case and are seeking answers about this case and about ICE’s policy that has led to the identification and arrest of university students with valid legal status.”

The arrest comes after Ozturk published an op-ed with three other students in 2024 calling for Tufts University to “engage with and actualize” Israel-Palestine-related resolutions passed by the university’s student government.

Secretary of State Marco A. Rubio stated that Ozturk’s visa had been revoked — around 300 student visas have been revoked in total by the Trump administration.

“If you lie to us and get a visa and then enter the United States, and with that visa participate in that sort of activity, we’re going to take away your visa,” Rubio said at a press conference on Thursday.

Kseniia Petrova, a Russian researcher at Harvard Medical

School, was also detained this week by immigration officials, as well as an Iranian student at the University of Alabama and a graduate student at the University of Minnesota.

Condemnations of the incident were also flowing from the State House. State Senator William N. Brownsberger ’78, whose district encompasses parts of Allston and Cambridge, said he was “sickened” and “angered” after watching the video of Ozturk’s detention.

Brownsberger suggested Ozturk had been denied due process, adding that he hoped the court system would act as a check on ICE’s actions. “This country is better than the kind of lawless detention that we’re seeing,” he said.

In a blog post last week, Brownsberger also endorsed two bills that would prevent state and local law enforcement from carrying out federal immigration enforcement. “Consensus on a state legislative response has so far eluded us, but the need for clarity in state policy is even more compelling now,” he wrote.

Another state senator, Jamie B. Eldridge — whose district encompasses parts of Middlesex County — made a direct appeal to the state’s universities.

“I am calling on Tufts University and every institution of higher education in Massachusetts to implement emergency protocols to protect their international students: legal representation, rapid response mechanisms, and public advocacy,” Eldridge wrote in a statement on Friday.

“Even if ICE operates outside direct state control, that does not mean Massachusetts must remain silent or passive,” Eldridge wrote.

megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com frances.yong@thecrimson.com.

Changing Course, McGovern Calls On Toner to Resign

BY SHAWN A. BOEHMER AND JACK B. REARDON

Cambridge Vice Mayor Marc C. McGovern reversed course last night, calling on fellow Councilor Paul F. Toner to resign in a statement.

McGovern denounced Toner without calling for his resignation in a statement made hours after the March 21 hearing. But on Wednesday night, he issued a new statement officially calling on Toner to resign after hearing residents’ concerns.

“At the beginning of each term, Councillors take an oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts and the United States, and Councillor Toner’s involvement in this illegal activity is a violation of that oath,” McGovern wrote.

“Although the Council has no authority to remove a fellow Councillor, I believe Councillor Toner should resign,” he added. Andrew M. Paven, a representative for Toner, declined to comment on McGovern’s latest statement.

Toner was charged in March with sexual conduct for a fee after a police report revealed he contacted a high-end interstate

brothel network with a location in Cambridge over a dozen times.

McGovern’s statement further increases the pressure on Toner to leave his position on the City Council. Toner, who has been widely criticized by residents during City Council meetings, is facing multiple resignation calls from local and state officials.

Toner was also quietly removed from his committee chairships last Wednesday.

Three out of the eight members of Cambridge’s City Council — McGovern, Councilor Sumbul Siddiqui, and Councilor Jivan Sobrinho-Wheeler — have issued statements directly calling on Toner to resign. Massachusetts State Representative Mike L. Connolly is also calling on Toner to step down.

Four other members of the council issued statements criticizing Toner’s actions, but did not call on him to resign. Only Councilor Catherine “Cathy” Zusy came to Toner’s aid, arguing that he should remain on the Council. Massachusetts State Rep. Marjorie C. Decker condemned Toner’s alleged involvement but stopped short of calling for his resignation. The rest of the Cambridge delegation have not released public statements.

McGovern wrote that if Toner remains in his position, public trust in the City Council will inevitably erode.

“This is not about job performance — it’s about an elected official violating the public’s trust in their civic leadership, and the seriousness of the allegations involved,” McGovern wrote.

In an interview with The Crimson shortly after he published his statement, McGovern acknowledged his long and productive relationship with Toner, but stressed that he was motivated by his public responsibility.

“At the end of the day, my ultimate responsibility is to the integrity of the institution and to the trust that people have in the city,” McGovern said. “And so that’s why I issued the statement.”

When asked about the members of council who have not called for Toner to resign, McGovern said, “they have to decide for themselves what they’re comfortable with and where they stand.”

“As much as we are a council, we are also individuals,” he added. “I had to do what I felt was right, and what I felt I had to do.”

shawn.boehmer@thecrimson.com

jack.reardon@thecrimson.com

BY LAUREL M. SHUGART AND MATAN H. JOSEPHY CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Cambridge Police Department is set to spend nearly $600,000 of the city’s budget to replace more than 400 guns, despite objection from residents and councilors over the need — and the price tag.

The City Council approved the purchase in a 6-3 vote on Monday night. The approval marks CPD’s second major expenditure on firearms over the past seven years; the department’s firearms are typically only replaced every eight to ten years, according to a letter sent to the City Council from Yi-An Huang ’05, the city manager.

The purchase comes amid controversy surrounding the P320 — the department’s current model — which is no longer carried by federally licensed firearm dealers in the state. Complaints with manufacturer Sig Sauer have piled up around the country, alleging that models of the P320 fired without an intentional trigger pull.

The issue has also directly affected CPD: Former Lieutenant Thomas J. Ahern is actively suing both the city and Sig Sauer after claiming that his gun discharged in a vehicle with six other officers.

Sig Sauer did not respond to a request for comment. City spokesperson Jeremy H. Warnick declined to comment on Ahern’s ongoing lawsuit.

City Solicitor Megan Bayer told the City Council that the request to replace the department’s firearms is not related to the ongoing litigation in a Thursday Finance Committee meeting.

“Our law enforcement public safety department is asking to replace firearms that are outdated, increasingly difficult to maintain,” Mayor E. Denise Simmons said in the Monday meeting.

“So this isn’t about expanding departments’ capabilities,” she added. “It’s about ensuring our public safety personnel have equipment that functions properly when needed.”

In a statement to the City Council accompanying the request, Huang wrote, “The manufacturer has ceased production of the model currently used and replacements are almost impossible to source.”

While part of the funds requested will replace training rifles, more than $300,000 will be used to buy new handguns for officers, though they have yet to choose a model to replace the P320.

The funds will come from Cambridge’s free cash reserves — the unrestricted, available funds from the previous fiscal year that can be used for appropriations — as opposed to CPD’s $81 million budget.

“This expense is a non-recurring cost and including it would unnecessarily increase our operating budget,” CPD Commissioner Christine A. Elow wrote in a letter to the Council.

Elow also noted that if the purchase had come as a part of the department’s budget, the firearms would not have come in time to train officers.

The gun purchase will accompany the department’s rollout of body-worn cameras, which require new holsters that will activate the cameras when a weapon is drawn.

But as threats to the city’s federal funding hang high, some councilors remained on the fence about pulling from the city’s reserves.

“I think, as we’re in a critical time for our community and talking, especially for Cambridge dollars,” Councilor Ayesha M. Wilson said at the meeting, “we can only appreciate that this is such a contentious conversation.”

While Wilson ultimately voted to approve the funding, Councilors Patty M. “Patty” Nolan ‘80, Sumbul Siddiqui, and Jivan Sobhrino-Wheeler voted against.

Despite some councilors’ hesitancy, Simmons said the purchase was necessary to ensure the department is well-equipped to maintain public safety in the city.

“This is modern modernization and not militarization. So we have a responsibility to make sure that the tools that our public safety personnel carry are safe, reliable, and aligned with best practices,” Simmons added.

matan.josephy@thecrimson.com laurel.shugart@thecrimson.com

FDA Layoffs, Funding Cuts Cast Shadow Over Biopharma

BY STEPHANIE DRAGOI AND THAMINI VIJEYASINGAM CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Amid a raft of federal changes cutting funding and capacities at the Food and Drug Administration, investors are soon expected to pull back from the biotech industry, representing a blow to a primary engine of the Boston area’s economic growth.

Local biotech firms, which were already seeing a downturn after a Covid-era peak in investment and funding, may now face stiffer competition from firms abroad.

“There’s extra pressure like I’ve never seen, probably in 25 years, in terms of the pressure on executive teams and boards to really survive through this period,” said Dan Gold, president of life sciences consulting firm Fairway Consulting.

The Crimson spoke with a range of experts including industry representatives, consultants, and biotech executives to understand a major shake-up of the regulatory and funding landscape for the biopharma industry. All of them said they expected the industry’s growth to slow in the coming months as companies race to adjust to a diminished FDA — which oversees the industry — and a new Secretary of Health and Human Services who is hostile to the pharmaceutical industry.

Most experts cited mass layoffs at the FDA as the most concerning change out of many over the last two months.

“The FDA as we’ve known it is finished, with most of the leaders with institutional knowledge and a deep understanding of product development and safety no longer employed,” wrote ex-FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf in a LinkedIn post on Tuesday.

Califf’s post followed an announcement that 10,000 employees would be fired from the Department of Health and Human Services by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday, with a third of the firings occurring in the FDA.

In a statement on Tuesday, MassBio CEO Kendalle Burlin O’Connell decried the layoffs.

“I am deeply troubled by the significant and arbitrary dismissal of HHS and FDA employees. Equally disturbing is the departure of key leaders at the FDA like Peter Marks and Peter Stein,” O’Connell wrote.

“We strongly encourage the Administration to reconsider cuts to the government agencies that ensure the continued development of novel medicines,” she added.

Catherine Gregor, chief clinical trial officer at Florence Healthcare, said that the layoffs could jeopar-

dize the United States’ leading position in biopharma on the global stage.

“Our timelines for approval are compared globally, and we don’t want to slip behind,” she said, calling the FDA a “shining point” compared to the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

Being “first-to-market” with a new drug can provide a significant capital advantage by allowing companies to reap maximum returns after the extensive and costly drug development process, Gregor pointed out.

“For the U.S., it’s bad if other reviewers are outpacing us. That means trials move out of the US into those regions,” Gregor added, citing losses to Asia and Australia.

Industry veteran and former Head of Clinical Innovation at Pfizer Craig Lipset said that the uncertain regulatory environment will make future planning, and ultimately new drug development, more of a challenge.

“I’m afraid we’ve lost that predictability in terms of how regulators will react to those more innovative methods. Those regulators were also very engaged internationally in helping to define harmonization and norms across the globe,” Lipset said.

“I don’t know that a pharma biotech company can even see around the corner on what the government is doing next right now, and be strategic about it,” Gold said.

Lipset also said companies will be more reluctant to pioneer new approaches in drug development.

“Those that are launching clinical trials for investigational new medicines will be more reluctant to take advantage of innovative approaches that could accelerate their clinical trials,” he said.

Kennedy has expressed concerns about vaccine safety, which could also affect companies’ drug selection decisions under his leadership.

“If I were a diversified pharmaceutical company with portfolios in oncology and rare and vaccine, I will probably be shifting my attention away from vaccines right now, suspecting that it will be either unpredictable or maybe even hostile, in terms of what reception will be at HHS for new vaccine development,” Lipset said.

“This is just going to further prompt an exodus to do trials in those countries versus the U.S. if the timelines start to go long,” Gregor said. Together, unpredictable regulations along with a decline in investment and federal funding, are causing concern for the local biopharma sector. Massachusetts is

the country’s leading biotech hub and home to the largest density of life sciences-related institutions, which are a major source of wealth for the state. Ben Bradford, Head of External Affairs at the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, said that the FDA layoffs will have a tangible impact on the Cambridge biotech industry, but was uncertain how far-reaching they could be.

“We’re all still trying to digest the news to figure out what exactly that means,” he said. Some long-time academics are considering a move to the private sector, according to Gold. But there may not be space to accommodate everyone, since the industry was already seeing shrinkage after an influx of Covid-era funding began to recede.

“There’s already been macro headwinds in the pharma industry for the last two years, as we’ve seen a number of layoffs across pharma,” Gregor said. The layoffs raise questions about where researchers and biopharma professionals will go during a time when many U.S. companies have been slimming their workforce.

“So the job market was already flooded, and now we have a whole other bolus of people coming in looking for jobs, and there’s just not enough jobs to go around,” she added.

Adding to the industry’s woes was the Trump’s administration’s announcement of reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday — notably 20 percent on the European Union — which are estimated to fully go into effect by April 9.

Many U.S. pharmaceutical companies currently rely on the manufacture of active ingredients from Europe, especially countries like Ireland, Germany and Switzerland.

Spokespeople for Pfizer, Sanofi, Biogen, and Amgen — all of which have locations in Cambridge — did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the pharmaceutical tariffs or the current state of biotech funding. Takeda and Novartis also declined to say how they would be impacted by the moves.

Although the move to introduce tariffs might, in theory, help bring manufacturing back to the U.S, Lipset warned that other policies at the FDA may still discourage domestic drug development.

“We’ve lost predictability with regulators, and we’ve incentivized talent to perhaps take their research efforts elsewhere,” he added.

BEACON HILL

POLITICS.

lawmakers are calling for the release of Rumeysa Ozturk from ICE detention.

Members of the Massachusetts delegation are calling for the release of Tufts graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk after she was detained by federal immigration officers last week. JACK R. TRAPANICK — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

MFA Monet Exhibition Review

storm brewing under the surface — a grappling not just with water and reflection, but also with deeper themes of time, aging, and the limits of vision.

Tihe MFA’s newly reimagined Gallery 252, which is dedicated to Claude Monet’s work, has found its centerpiece in “Water Lilies, Reflections of Weeping Willows” (1916-1919), a powerful work now on loan from a private collection. Towering in scale and tumultuous in texture, the painting marks a striking contrast to the more familiar and serene “Water Lilies” (1907) that has long anchored the room. With its jewel-toned palette and expressive brushwork, “Reflections” deepens the narrative of Monet’s artistic career, offering a more complicated and poignant portrait of the artist in the final decade of his life.

The work is unique among the MFA’s other Monet holdings: Painted nearly a decade after any other Monet in the museum’s collection, “Reflections” immediately announces itself as something different. The brushwork is more aggressive, more frantic — long, feverish strokes of aquamarine and green-brown swirl across the surface of the canvas like ripples disturbed by a sudden wind. This is not the meditative calm of earlier water lily paintings. It’s a

Jonquils Cafe & Bakery markets itself as an “elegant cafe on Newbury street.” The statement is only a half lie — it is, in fact, on Newbury Street. The cafe is famous for its 3D printed geometric molds that produce impressively designed pastries. Each dessert has multiple layers of filling and a gorgeous presentation that aims to sell itself at the caliber of a Michelin-star dessert. Consequently, the pastries are more expensive than your typical cafe, with the cheapest item priced at $13. Jonquils has a bare and simplistic interior adorned with pink velvet chairs, marble tables, and painted wallpaper that appears to attempt a highend look. Especially at fancier restaurants, a minimalist, high-quality interior can elevate the dining experience. However, at Jonquils, their “minimalist” design falls flat and looks sim-

By this point in his life, Monet was battling cataracts. His deteriorating eyesight has long been noted in art historical discussions of his later styles, but “Reflections” gives visceral shape to that strug-

him, he seems to say, then let abstraction triumph. This expressive freedom stands in bold relief to the neighboring “Water Lilies,” which is much smaller in scale and lighter in tone. There, Monet’s palette is airy and pastel: Pale greens, soft pinks, and sunlit yellows drift dreamily across the canvas in gentle, floating brushstrokes.

Here, the water, weeping willows, and lily pads all dissolve into a chromatic reverie. The painting becomes less about what the eye sees and more about what the soul feels.

gle, especially as it’s placed as a centerpiece among the tranquility of the other pieces. The brushwork borders on abstraction, pushing representation to its limits. In the upside-down tree mirrored in the pond’s surface, the reflection becomes more real than the object — it’s as if Monet, aware of his fading sight, found refuge in what could only ever be seen indirectly. Reflections allow imprecision, inviting interpretation. In that sense, then, the choice to paint reflections instead of the trees themselves may be a defiant statement. If clarity will elude

The water is still, and the flowering lily pads rest like untroubled thoughts. The juxtaposition of these two works is deliberate and highly effective, highlighting not only Monet’s dramatic stylistic evolution but also his shifting emotional realm. Whereas the 1907 piece exudes calm and control, the later “Reflections” pulses with unease and urgency. Rather than a painter resigned to the twilight of his career, the canvas showcases a painter still searching, still wrestling with form, still furious about the constraints placed by his own body.

Color plays a critical role in both works, but it is much more daring in “Reflections.” The deep azures, cornflower blues, and forest greens dominate, punctuated by small but electrifying bursts of red and magenta and indigo. These hues seem almost too intense for a natural pond scene — but perhaps that is precisely the point. Monet’s palette, once rooted in plein air accuracy, becomes emotive and symbolic in his later work. Here, the water, weeping willows, and lily pads all dissolve into a chromatic reverie. The painting becomes less about what the eye sees and more about what the soul feels.

The re-curated museum room also reflects this new emotional complexity. Rather than a solely chronological layout, the gallery is organized to guide visitors through overlapping themes: light and atmosphere, color and emotion, perspective and abstraction. Each wall is anchored by a central idea, with an accompanying blurb to prompt viewers’ introspection as they stroll around the room.

The far wall, where “Reflections” hangs, is flanked by earlier works like “Morning on the Seine near Giverny” (both the 1896 and 1897 versions), inviting viewers to trace the river of Monet’s thought across decades. Elsewhere, visitors encounter the rugged cliffs of Les Petites Dalles in Normandy, the quiet fields of Vetheuil, and the sunrise-illuminated facades of Rouen Cathedral. It is clear that the room layout was carefully con-

sidered to play with contrast as much as the paintings themselves do. Darker, more somber works are hung beside vibrant, sunlit scenes. The eye is drawn across the space by these oppositions, reinforcing Monet’s constant dialogue between light and shadow, clarity and blur. While the addition of “Reflections” provides an emotional and historical anchor to the room, it also raises some interesting questions about Monet’s approach and intention with his later works. Is this late style a descent into abstraction or a deliberate reinvention? Are these frenetic brushstrokes simply symptoms of physical impairment or purposeful symbols of artistic liberation? The painting resists easy answers, and that resistance is what makes it so compelling and what draws the eye back to the work again and again. Ultimately, “Water Lilies, Reflections of Weeping Willows” is more than just a new loan. It is a necessary addition to the exhibit — one that both complicates and enriches the public’s understanding of Monet. The MFA has not just acquired a beautiful new piece; it has expanded and offered a deeper glimpse into the narrative that Monet created. In the process, the museum invites visitors to reconsider not just what they see but how they see — and to linger in, ponder, and appreciate the stories in between a bit more.

audrey.zhang@thecrimson.com

While the multi-layered design is certainly impressive, it only gives the illusion of sophistication.

ply outdated. The hard-rock music that plays in the cafe further separates Jonquils from their intended upscale atmosphere. Jonquils’ pastries, like their interior design, try a bit too hard. The Strawberry Rose has a stunning exterior with layers of vanilla pastry cream, dark chocolate crunch, vanilla sponge cake, and a strawberry mousse coating. While the multi-layered design is certainly impressive, it only gives the illusion of sophistication. The flavors of the mousse, cream, and cake blend together almost indistinguishably, with the chocolate crunch feeling completely out of place. Moreover, the flavor combinations make the dessert

overwhelmingly sweet. Unless you have a sweet tooth strong enough to eat an entire bar of white chocolate, this dessert is likely not for you. The Apple, their most popular item, is much stronger. The geometric apple is filled with chopped up, caramelized apples, a chocolate sponge, and a cheesecake coating. Unlike the rose, the cheesecake is light and perfectly sweet, and the chopped apples add a lovely tang to the pastry. However, much like the rose, the chocolate filling is entirely incongruent with the rest of the dessert. A spice cake, carrot cake, or even simply vanilla cake would complement the flavors far better. While the Apple is better than the Strawberry Rose, it nevertheless falls victim to the cafe’s tendency to present itself as more upscale and experimental than it actually is. Overall, the cafe’s food attempts to make a high-end dessert with mediocre flavor combinations, mak-

ing the costly pastries far from worth it. By contrast, the drinks at Jonquils are fantastic and make up for the shortcomings of the food. The Rose Latte, in particular, has an amazing flavor

‘Rhyme, Rhythm, and Resistance’ Review: A Display of Art and Activism

EXPERIENCING THIS AMBITIOUS SHOW REQUIRES BOTH LEARNING AND UNLEARNING.

Rhyme, Rhythm, and Resistance” is both an ode to artists of the past and a nod to artists of today who have a common “disdain for the status quo.” Patrice Green, curator for African American and African Diasporic Collections at the Schlesinger Library, has melded the work of student movements, creatives, and activists with one central goal: to “take women’s words as seriously as their actions.” Ultimately, the show takes a nuanced look at not only what women say, but also what they feel and experience.

The multimedia exhibit features the work of influential female performers spanning Carla De-

Santis, the Yeastie Girlz, June Jordan, Holly Near, Adrienne Kennedy, Pat Parker, Susan Griffin, and Radcliffe College’s own Adrienne Rich ’51.

Presenting these powerful figures together in a one-room gallery (excluding the small nook separated by a 70s-style beaded curtain) risks both oversimplification and oversaturation. Despite this, the show convincingly conveys a sense of community and interrelatedness among artists while differentiating between their individual interests and experiences. Bright red placards across the room introduce each performer and period, providing the viewer with some sense of direction as they engage with the miscellaneous poems, pamphlets, and posters littering the walls. Still, making these distinctions may require backtracking, rereading, and double-checking while working through the flux of material. Some creations are physically separated from descriptions of

their creator: Pat Parker’s influential poem “Don’t Let the Fascists Speak” is situated next to memorabilia of the Yeastie Girlz — a female-forward band from the late 80s — while the rest of her work is found in the next room over. While some may get lost in the mix, the relevance of this exhibition’s content cannot get lost on viewers. Protests over American involvement in the Middle East, debates about free speech on college campuses, and cries for the protection of women’s reproductive rights are some of the many topics explored in this retrospective show. Ties to the present are made overt with the inclusion of contemporary work alongside dated pieces: Black Lives Always Matter (2022), a graphic novel written by Dr. Sheena C. Howard and featuring the contributions of over a dozen Black artists from Philadelphia, is displayed next to the work of singer-songwriter and anti-racism activist Holly Near. In the middle of the main room,

Neal Francis Concert Review: Funk is Alive and Well in Cambridge

BY ASHA M. KHURANA CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

It requires a double take to be completely sure that the man on stage is not a young Mick Jagger. But on March 26, the marquee at the Sinclair in Cambridge confirmed that it was, in fact, not a Stones cover band but rather Neal Francis — an artist far from the gimmick of emulating his influences. And while Francis’ shag haircut and rainbow striped flares exude equal amounts of kitsch and swagger, once he starts playing, Francis proves that not an iota of his quiet confidence is unmerited.

The opening song of the set, “Problems,” saw the frontman in his element, head thrown back while he alternated between two keyboards, cooing into the microphone over a driving kickdrum beat. Francis spent most of the show tucked away, hidden in the benches behind these two keyboards, and his stage presence took form not in dance moves but in blissed-out facial expressions and authoritative toe-taps.

“Already Gone” followed, proving bassist Mike Starr and guitarist Austin Koenigstein to be pillars of Francis’ funk. Starr’s properly dirty bass line was overlaid by Koenigstein in-

dulging himself in a truly excellent guitar solo. Rolling into “How Have I Lived” and “What’s Left of Me,” the band continued to strut through true rock and roll, supported by drummer Collin O’Brien’s precision. Evoking ’70s icons like T. Rex and Sly and the Family Stone, these tracks demonstrated Francis’ roots in classic blues and jazz, their glam rock offspring, and Francis’ own creative muscles. After a breath, “Dirty Little

meandering piano solo to wind down the track.

“Can’t Stop the Rain” built the rock groove to a peak, showing the band letting loose in their element. Francis strolled around the stage to his bandmates, sharing a dance and even a highfive with his co-creatives in moments of unadulterated praise. “Sentimental Garbage” took a more modern sonic twist, with a low-key groove rivaling that of Tame Impala or King Gizzard &

Between each snap of the cymbal was a swell of untethered groove — a push and pull of precision against fervor.

Secret” relaxed the pace — a lush psychedelic landscape of instrumentation. Some magic brewed between Francis’ two keyboards, offering at once a grainy growl and a twinkling melody. “Very Fine, Pts. 1 & 2” continued the psych-rock feel, a track that barrels with conviction. O’Brien flew on the drums until Francis looked to his band for a nod of affirmation, kicking off Francis’

the Lizard Wizard. The next three tracks were woven together into a couple dozen minutes of pure funk excellence. He started with his most popular track, “Changes, Pts. 1 & 2.” Francis drapes a sultry vocal line loaded with charisma over an addictively funky bassline and a perfectly danceable chanking guitar riff. The Sinclair’s disco ball bathed the

five large posters hang from the ceiling, containing poems highlighting female perspectives from the Schlesinger Library collections. One such work, “Que Bonita

derstanding may be a common experience for some of the gallery’s audience. The show takes an intersectional approach to feminism, considering misogynoir —

The show takes an intersectional approach to feminism, considering misogynoir — a term specific to the prejudice felt by Black women — along with misogyny.

Bandera” by Ranito and the People of Puerto Rico, is written in Spanish, inviting discussion surrounding who these words are meant for and if “taking women’s words…seriously” requires complete understanding.

Indeed, a lack of complete un-

boogying crowd in light in a moment that seemed to be the embodiment of the purpose of all disco balls everywhere. And if it seemed to anyone that the moment could not get better, Francis brought out the openers, Atlanta-based Improvement Movement, to croon the hook of “Need You Again” over the instrumental outro of “Changes,” resulting in an impossibly catchy and flawlessly harmonized arrangement. Finishing the trifecta with “Broken Glass,” the stage became the pipe dream of every jam band and the definite highlight of Wednesday

a term specific to the prejudice felt by Black women — along with misogyny. This guiding intent brings to light the experiences of marginalized women, which are often disregarded in the field of fine arts. Those who are unfamiliar with the hidden histories of women of

night’s set. Between each snap of the cymbal was a swell of untethered groove — a push and pull of precision against fervor. These days, the average concert delays gratification in their audience by saving the best song for last, even if it would fit better in a different place on the setlist. It’s rare to see an artist create a story with their setlist, but after the climax of “Changes,” “Need You Again,” and “Broken Glass,” Francis’ set winded down in an admirable sequence of falling action. The regular set closed with the pleasant groove of “BNYLV,” and the encore was

color in the United States and beyond may leave with more questions than answers. However, to those who experience the interlocking forces of sexism and racism in their own lives, these topics will likely be nothing new. Experiencing this ambitious show requires both learning and unlearning. It explores themes of bitterness, bigotry, identity, unrecognized labor, war, colonialism, freedom, fairness, and relationships. While much of the content is heavy, it is balanced with elements of beauty and humor and a bold permission for promiscuity (as seen in June Jordan’s poem “For Audre,” which starts, “Who is this bitch?”). With such a diverse range of perspectives and voices highlighted, the installation explores the heterogeneity of what it means to be a woman: as a mother, a performer, a fighter, and — dare I say — a “bitch.”

anya.movius@thecrimson.com

a single song, “150 More Times,” that leaned into glam rock influences — less awe inspiring than the previous songs, but certainly as enjoyable as ever. Neal Francis has mastered the art of the groove — honoring a star-studded roster of influences while simultaneously staying undeniably himself. Perhaps the measure of a good funk artist is their ability to induce dancing. Based on the perpetual motion in the crowd at the Sinclair, then, Francis is undoubtedly one of the greats.

asha.khurana@thecrimson.com

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

APRIL 4, 2025

John C. Urschel is an assistant professor in the MIT Math Department and a Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows. He previously played for the Baltimore Ravens. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

FM: What drew you to specialize in matrix analysis and numerical analysis?

JCU: I find that the type of area of math I work in has been strongly influenced by who my mentors have been and who the people are who have taken an interest in me and said, “Oh, I think John can do math.”

I ended up taking a Ph.D. class in numerical linear algebra. Again, the professor in that class took some interest in me, offered me a research project, and that’s how I started working on things related to matrices and linear algebra. From there, I’ve grown to really like the field.

FM: In 2015, you had a concus sion while at a training camp, and you were unable to work with high-level math for a few months. What made you return to the field after you healed?

JCU: So I was out for — not a couple of months, maybe under a month — but I was definitely out for a bit.

While I was healing, I thought a little bit about how unfortunate it was to get a concussion, but at the time, I was focused on getting back out on the field.

My first practice, things weren’t going so well. I was keeping my head out of things. My position coach worked with me after prac tice to make sure that I was ready to go. From there, I just got back to it. I was focused on getting back with my teammates and getting ready to play because, at the time, I was a pretty serious contributor to the team.

FM: Why did you ultimately de cide to leave the NFL?

JCU: All of a sudden, my priorities became raising my daughter, being around and being healthy to hang out with my daughter when she’s older and I’m older, being able to do math, and doing math at a high level. Football came third on that list. Football is a great sport, but it’s a pretty violent sport. When it’s third on your list of priori ties, it’s probably not a good idea for that to be something that you keep doing when it’s a very serious sport. It is a sport I love.

FM: Have any of your students ever been fans of your football career?

Q&A:

terms, what does the theorem do?

JCU: The naming of that, I think, was very kind of some of the people working with the American Math Society and the Notices. That was one of my earlier papers with a Bulgarian mathematician, Ludmil Zikatanov, who was one of my mentors. I’m his former student, but he’s also a very good friend. He was a groomsman at my wedding, and this was something we studied when I was a student at Penn State.

JOHN C. URSCHEL ON NUMERICAL LINEAR ALGEBRA, COFFEE SHOPS, AND THE NFL FIFTEEN MINUTES 17

FIFTEEN QUESTIONS. John C. Urschel, an assistant professor in the MIT Math Department and Junior Fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows, discussed his time playing for the Baltimore Ravens, his wide-ranging academic career, and his love of competitive online chess with Fifteen Minutes.

JCU: Not so openly, which I appreciate. It’s nice. I had a class last year on numerical methods. I’m teaching this course, and about halfway through the semester, someone in office hours mentions to me that they had no idea that I used to play football, and, in fact, the class just didn’t know. I guess I was trending on Reddit or some such thing, and so one of them opened up Reddit, and I was on the front page for some — I don’t know why. I’m not on Reddit, so it’s not me on Reddit, but something about me. Then they were like, “Wait, I think that’s my math professor. That can’t be right.”

FM: How do you feel about football from a health perspective, given what we now know about its connection to CTE and brain damage?

JCU: The way football is often viewed within American culture is not necessarily something that I fully agree with. For instance, I feel like in a lot of places in this country, football is viewed as the default sport for a healthy young boy. I’m not sure I’m on the same page with that. For instance, I think, first of all, there’s not that much benefit to contact football before late middle school, or I would even say until high school.

This is, of course, every parent’s own opinion. If I were talking

about my own son — this will be something that will come up eventually — I think not. When it comes to high school football, I think it’s a great sport. It has a lot of really good benefits, but it’s a really violent sport.

It’s a sport that I think you should not be playing unless you find that aspect of it is something that is really good for you and you really enjoy it — and the physical contact of it is something that you really get a benefit from.

FM: What advice would you give to student-athletes balancing their academics and their sport?

JCU: Football, especially at a top Division I program — despite the NCAA limits on hours — it’s really a full-time job. Then you also have academics to worry about. I would say the thing that helped me the most is that I always try to structure my schedule so that I take care of the most important things first.

I would sign up for the 6 a.m. lifting session. I would sign up for treatment as early as possible. I would also schedule my classes as early as possible for anything.

Then later on, maybe at night, if I’ve done everything I need to, I’ve done all my P-sets, I’m studied up, I’ve done all I need to do for football, I can relax.

FM: Was it a marching band?

ACB: I didn’t do very much of that. It’s

very hard on your embouchure. It’s very, very hard on the musculature of your face. I was a serious player studying with the members of the Seattle Symphony from really young ages, and they were like, “No, you’re not doing that.” That would be as if you were a serious athlete and doing something dangerous.

FM: Has your mathematical knowledge ever been useful to you in a football game?

JCU: I’m going to say my mathematical knowledge has never once been useful in a football game, but I do feel that the skills that math teaches you have been really helpful. One thing that has been helpful for me throughout my career is quick quantitative reasoning. It’s not a single math formula.

FM: You play competitive online chess. What draws you to the game?

JCU: Competitive is a very strong word. I’m a very average chess player. I enjoy it. It’s a fun game. It’s nice to have hobbies. I’’s nice to have things to do that are different than work. It’s the sort of thing I like doing at night, again, when my day is done and when I’ve done everything I need to do.

My wife would say, “You’ve had such a long day. You want to relax and turn

your brain off by focusing really hard and trying to solve complicated chess puzzles or try to play stressful chess games.”

FM: You’re on the selection committee for the Mathical Book Prize, an annual award for fiction and nonfiction books that inspire children to see math in their world. Of all of the books you’ve reviewed for the prize, which one stands out to you and why?

JCU: That is a tough one. We’ve gone through so many great books. I love being one of the chairs of that committee. You get to read so many great math books for young people.

For young ages, I would say the book “Zero Zebras.” It’s an interesting book that goes around the idea of zero.

FM: What is your current favorite NFL team?

JCU: I played for the Ravens, so I always hope the Ravens do well. I’m always happy to see them doing well. But I’m a Bills fan. I grew up in Buffalo. I’ve been a fan since I was a little kid. I suffered through the 90s as a little kid — lots of Super Bowls, no Super Bowl championships. So, I’m a Bills fan for life.

FM: The Urschel-Zikatanov theorem is named after you. In layman’s

BASEBALL

Harvard Advances to Beanpot Final SPORTS 18

BY CONNOR CASTAÑEDA CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

any runs, stranding five runners across the first two innings. The first scoring action came from Harvard in the action-packed fourth on a sacrifice fly by junior Jordan Kang, followed quickly by an RBI single from senior Matt Giberti. After senior George Cooper was hit by a pitch, junior Gio Colasante smashed a three run home run — his third of the year — to bring the Crimson’s advantage to 5-0.

Harvard scored three more runs to open the fifth, led by an RBI double from Kang and a sacrifice fly by Cooper. In the bottom of the inning, UMass scored one run after four consecutive walks by the Crimson’s pitching staff to cut the lead to 8-1 af-

ter five.

The next scoring action came in the eighth, when Cooper scored a run off an error, one of four from the Minutemen in the game.

UMass gave Harvard its biggest scare of the day when they scored four runs in the bottom of the eighth off Cole Clearly, a right-handed senior for the Crimson.

Going into the top of the ninth with a 9-5 advantage, Harvard scored quickly on a two-run double from Cooper, who ended the day with three RBI and three runs scored. After an RBI single by freshman Liam Wilson and a pinchhit sacrifice fly by freshman Gavin Smith, the Crimson held a 13-5 lead which proved to be insurmountable by the Minutemen.

Harvard’s win was its first at Earl Lorden Field since May 3, 2000, when the team narrowly defeated UMass by a score of 9-8. After today, the Crimson holds a 35-21 advan-

tage in the all-time series versus the Minutemen — a series that dates all the way back to 1914 when the teams first played in Cambridge.

As the buzzer rang, the team sprinted across the court in a pompous celebration, knowing that an opportunity exists to make its Ivy League dreams still come true.

The team returns to Cambridge on Friday when it faces off against Brown in another pivotal matchup for its postseason odds. The game will be streamed on ESPN+ at 5:00 p.m.

“We’re hoping to close out strong at home,” added Nelson. “We just won two, so hopefully we can keep that momentum starting on this game, and finish strong for the rest of the season.”

Later this month, Harvard will play in its 14th Beanpot Tournament final on Apr. 29th against the Northeastern Huskies, who defeated Boston College 3-0 in the other

Men’s Volleyball Splits Weekend With GMU

miscommunication by the Crimson on a free ball led to a golden attacking opportunity for the Patriots, forcing Coach Brian Baise to call a timeout as his team trailed 8-13. Harvard never regained mo-

Patriots distanced from the Crimson and claimed the set 25-21.

Back’s against the wall in a pivotal conference clash, Harvard attempted to create early separation, but George Mason hung closely be-

set 27-25. While the Patriots faltered under the pressure of the fourth set, now feeling its own back against the wall, George Mason came into form in an impressive fifth set. Though

throughout leading to its on-court confidence.

The Crimson and the Patriots started on a similar footing, setting themselves up for an even match as they traded points early in the first set.

their match point at 25-22. The third set started off as an even match before the Crimson met the halfway mark with a new definition of dominance.

so many familiar faces, so much family here, and it was a great time,” Fanning said.

“It was a lot less stressful than last night, but equally as important as a win,” he added.

Harvard 2, GMU 3 Harvard jumped out to an early lead off the back of three George Mason errors. The Patriots cut the lead to one before a Crimson surge gave Harvard a 9-5 advantage. But the Crimson fell victim to the error bug midway through the set and briefly surrendered the lead. After having fallen behind, the Crimson was able to resize the lead by cleaning up its game.

The two foes played evenly throughout the remainder of the set, but a timely run from the Crimson’s attack led to Harvard seizing a 25-22 first set victory. Set two started with the two teams trading blows. Following a 6-6 tie, George Mason used its strong attack to take a 10-7 lead. A

mentum throughout the set and fell 25-19.

The Patriots continued to dominate the early third set primarily at the net. George Mason built a wall at the net that bounced kills back in the Crimson attackers’ faces. After a brief Harvard run cut the lead to two, the Patriots once again showed its prowess and pushed to an 11-6 lead that forced a Crimson timeout.

Coach Baise instilled sage wisdom on the team during the timeout as Harvard came out hot. Strong defense and a stronger attacking game helped the Crimson cut the deficit to one point at 18-17. Just when Harvard got in touch, George Mason pounced again, stretching the lead back to four and causing the Crimson to burn another timeout in the set.

Harvard’s second timeout proved less effective though as the

hind. The Patriots used a string of kills to pass the Crimson and claim an 8-10 lead, but Harvard immediately struck back and knotted it at 12.

With the set at deadbolt, it was George Mason now leading the dance with a slight advantage. The Crimson continued to tango stepfor-step with the Patriots, never falling more than a beat behind and once again reaching lockstep at 16 all.

With a fierce desire and intensity, the two foes each sensed the moment and matched each other set for set, kill for kill, block for block. Neither team led by more than a point until deuce.

But then, with the set in the balance, George Mason could not rise to the moment and committed a fatal attacking error, awarding the resilience of Harvard with the tying

the Crimson entered the set with momentum, the Patriots swiftly stole any hope from Harvard with a 5-1 run to start the abbreviated set.

From there it was all gas and no brakes for George Mason. The Patriots turned the highly anticipated fifth set into an uninteresting, bloodbath. Ultimately, George Mason claimed the set and match with a 7-15 rout.

Harvard 3, GMU 0

Harvard entered its second game against George Mason with a packed crowd for the team’s senior night. That energy seemed to have an effect on the Crimson as it prepared for a tough battle after yesterday’s loss.

The Crimson found itself playing a cleaner game than their past few, with very few service errors

Early on in the game, senior right side hitter Andrew Lobo — who recently returned to the sport after recovering from an ACL injury — locked in with a clean kill across the court that left George Mason stunned and ended their four-point run, raising the score to 4-6. Lobo, who tore his ACL on last season’s senior night, said coming back and being able to play this year’s game “injury-free felt amazing,” adding that he was thankful for his recovery process and for his ability to get back on the court.

After a few more points of back and forth with Harvard just behind, sophomore middle Owen Woolbert came in with an ace to tie things up 9-9.

The two teams continued swapping points with the Patriots keeping a slight lead. Neither team relented throughout the set as the two rivaled each other for points at 2525. But benefitting from errors on their opponents’ attacks, Harvard was able to cinch the set 27-25 and carry that momentum forward.

The second set started off strong again with another well-paired back-and-forth. The two teams traded points throughout nearly the entire first half of the set before the Crimson started running for it.

Harvard brought out a wall of a block — made up of Woolbert, senior outside hitter Logan Shepherd, and senior setter James Barden — that annihilated a George Mason ball and drove the Crimson further forward for a 16-13 lead.

While George Mason rivaled Harvard’s scoring opportunities, they were unable to make up the gap and squeezed out a consecutive two points before the Crimson got

After points of back and forth, Harvard finally caught its rhythm over George Mason. While the crowd’s energy held steady throughout the game, the last set showed the power of Harvard’s fans as the stands erupted after a rock-solid block from Woolbert and Shepherd that brought the score to 14-10 and solidified a Harvard lead. As the set progressed, the Crimson persisted as the notable victor and took point after point from itsopponents. A five-point run that left the score at 21-14 widened the gap as the Crimson showed off its consistent serving and blocking game to clean up the set. The Patriots squeezed out three more points from Harvard before the Crimson prepared to shut them down 25-17 and rushed the court to celebrate the

In a historic capstone to a record-breaking career, Harvard senior guard Harmoni Turner became the first Ivy League player to be named the Becky Hammon Mid-Major Player of the Year Wednesday.

The national award, presented by Her Hoop Stats, recognizes the top player from a mid-major program — and this year, Turner left no doubt that she belongs at the top. The honor adds to an impressive list of accolades for Turner that includes Ivy League Player of the Year and Associated Press All-American Honor -

able Mention. Two months before the season, Turner added to her trophy cabinet, leading the United States to the gold medal in the FIBA 3x3 U23 World Cup. Turner totaled 40 points across seven games, good for second overall in the tournament. Turner carried the momentum into her finest season in the Crimson uniform, averaging 22.5 points, 5.4 rebounds, 3.4 assists, along with 2.8 steals per game. Known for her dynamic scoring ability, court vision, and relentless motor, Turner was the driving force behind Harvard’s best regular season in program history. “This program hasn’t seen a player like her in a very long

time,” said Harvard women’s basketball coach Carrie Moore during senior night last month. “She’s paving the way for other players to come in this league and do the things that she’s doing. The crown she wears is heavy, so I’m really proud of her.”

This year, Turner broke the single game scoring record, notching 41 points in a 78-70 home victory over Boston College. The new record stood for exactly four months until Turner outdid herself, rebreaking her record with higher stakes on the line. Turner utilized her triple threat scoring abilities to full effect, exploding for 44 points in the 70-67 Ivy League Tour -

nament semifinal victory over Princeton. The following day she scored 24 points en route to a narrow 74-71 win over Columbia, earning Harvard its first Ivy Madness Championship and a return to March Madness for the first time since 2007. As her Crimson days come to an end, Turner’s name has already been circulating WNBA Draft conversations. She will hope to hear her name called on April 14 in New York City. er demanded the ball be in her hands, driving down the lane and dishing to Rodriguez for a clutch layup that put Harvard back on top. With under 10 seconds left, Brown’s Gianna Aiello caught a pass that narrowly evaded Rodriguez’s reach

in the paint, but she missed the open left-handed layup. Turner then sealed the win at the freethrow line, securing Harvard’s 60-57 victory. Despite reaching the 60-point mark for the ninth straight game, the Crimson struggled offensively, shooting just 38.3% from the field. A significant factor in Harvard’s shooting struggles was its reliance on the three-point shot, accounting for half of its field goal attempts. Harvard also felt the absence of junior guard Saniyah Glenn-Bello, the team’s third leading scoring and defensive anchor, who was sidelined due to injury. Despite the struggles, the team’s 12 offensive rebounds and 17 sec -

NHL Draft Shapes Hockey Team Culture

BY BIANCA M. EGAN CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Though more than a third of current players on the Harvard men’s ice hockey team look forward to professional careers in the sport, they’re still set on keeping the Crimson “brotherhood.”

Unlike in other professional sports leagues, most hockey players are drafted by an NHL team before they play in the NCAA. The league’s draft eligibility rules stipulate that players must be between the ages of 18 and 20. Teams then retain the rights to their drafted players until they sign the player to a contract or the player leaves college.

That means Harvard hockey players are the only at the school who gear up for the Crimson while affiliated to a professional team. The Crimson has a history of producing talented NHL players — including Rangers defenseman Adam Fox ’21 and Sharks defenseman Henry Thrun ’23 — who both currently play in the NHL following their time at Harvard. Despite the unquestioned quality of hockey development at Harvard, having so many players with professional aspirations might raise questions about maintaining a strong team culture. Yet, the Crimson’s bond knows no bounds.

Thirty ‘Best Friends’

Describing the Harvard hockey program, sophomore defenseman Ben MacDonald, drafted in the third round and 91st over -

all to the Seattle Kraken, used the word “family.” The fraternal relationships between individual players and the coaching staff, in addition to the way the team cares for one another on and off the ice, powers the players through the season.

As student athletes, the balancing act between the world of academics and athletics is a challenge that all players feel, but don’t need to do alone.

Junior forward Joe Miller, drafted in the 6th round and 180th overall to the Toronto Maple Leaves, appreciates that “we have so many brilliant guys on this team, and the older guys do a great job of helping you with your schedule, with classes. They’ve been through it before.”

Hockey players often take at least a year off to play on the junior circuit. The ability to rely on one another makes the process of readjusting to academic life a smooth transition.

Senior tri-captain Ian Moore, now signed to the AHL San Diego Gulls, noted “the people that surround the hockey program and the school, they really care for the student athletes here,” helping make the program what it is today.

The personal relationships fostered within the walls of Bright-Landry Hockey Center extend beyond academic and athletics. The team, composed of nearly thirty “best friends.” spend as much time together as possible. Some of their favorite memories are as simple as “just hanging out with the guys in the locker room.”

Many have played on teams with one another over the years.

“Knowing a couple guys coming in just makes it that much easier to integrate into the lock -

er room and the school,” Miller said.

From the Draft to College

For the players drafted into the NHL, the accomplishment is a point of pride. But the connected locker room environment also motivates players not to allow themselves to become distracted, instead giving their all to Harvard while at the school.

The feeling of being drafted is an honor for the players and always a fond memory.

“It was pretty crazy. I was playing junior hockey in Chicago, and I didn’t really know if I was gonna get drafted or not. I

had talked to a couple of teams,

but no guarantees,” Miller said.

“It was after practice, I was in the weight room with a couple of my teammates. I was sitting there mid-set. I don’t remember what I was doing, but I was watching the TV. Toronto was one of the teams I had talked to, and I just saw my name pop up.”

For Moore, the excitement of the experience was unmatched, but sharing it with close family was “probably the best thing.”

After reaching a major milestone in their hockey journey, the players saw Harvard as a place to continue growing.

MacDonald grew up attending Harvard hockey games with his father, Hobey Baker award winner Lane MacDonald ’88. Learning to skate at the BrightLandry rink built his early interest in the program. Now, the younger MacDonald dons the same #19 jersey as his father every time he steps out on the ice for a game.

“Harvard hockey is just kind of the best of both worlds,” the sophomore said.

“It’s definitely an honor to be drafted,” Moore said on the exciting prospect of playing NHL hockey. But in order to make the most out of the Harvard experience, he emphasized, “You definitely can’t focus on it too much.”

Moore applies this to his captainship as well, where he, alongside his other drafted co-captains, don’t feel like their future in the NHL impacts their

leadership ability. Moore believes that the only two qualifications are to be a dedicated member of the program, and more importantly, to be an example of “what it means to be a Harvard hockey player.”

While moving on is something Miller thinks about, especially as he gets older, he maintains that “When you’re at the rink, you’re playing games, you’re present, you’re here at Harvard.”

This attitude, summarized by MacDonald as “Harvard hockey first,” paints a picture of the dedicated nature of the team.

Impact on the Team

Head Coach Ted Donato ‘91, formerly a player at both Harvard and in the NHL, knows that “the odds of actually making it in the NHL are very difficult,” meaning that it’s important “to stay in the here and now.”

“Whether a guy is drafted or not, I think there’s a competitive nature that allows you to excel in everything you do, whether that’s academics or, in this case, hockey. I think the character of an individual doesn’t change,” he added.

He credits his entire team for their commitment to the program, regardless of their prospective professional careers. Donato aims to set the example of not placing too much emphasis on the on-paper accomplishments like goals, saves, or who is drafted or not.

Women’s Lacrosse Falls to Princeton

Despite a strong start, the Harvard women’s lacrosse team (3-2, 0-1 Ivy) could not contain No. 13 Princeton’s (5-1, 1-0 Ivy) relentless offensive pressure during the Ivy opener, losing 20-6 at Sherrerd Field. After a thrilling overtime win against the No. 25 University of Connecticut last week, the Crimson looked to upset the Tigers on Saturday. The game had particularly high stakes for Harvard, which fell in a devastating overtime loss against Princeton at home last spring. Although Princeton notched an early two-goal lead in the first quarter, Harvard juniors Kate Gilliam and Charlotte Hodgson quickly responded with goals of their own. The Tigers, spurred by their rapid passing, picked up the go-ahead point before the Crimson’s freshman Tori Blaser drove home a free-position shot, deadlocking the scoreboard at 3-3. In the final few seconds of the quarter, Harvard’s junior defender Despina Giannakopoulos caused a turnover and pushed the ball upfield to senior Charley Meier, who then fired it on net. However, Amelia Hughes, Princeton’s goalie, came up with a huge save, cementing the score at 5-3 at the end of the first quarter. Despite its strong early play, Harvard struggled to maintain possession of the ball, particularly on the draw, which gave

the home team an enormous offensive advantage. In the second quarter, the Crimson had a hard time protecting its sticks against the Tigers’ pressure on the offensive ride. Harvard had a few costly turnovers during its clear attempts and was then cited with a string of fouls as Princeton began to ramp up its offensive

pace. The Tigers, capitalizing on the penalties, ignited a strong three-goal scoring run that was fueled by attackers McKenzie Blake and Jani MacDonald. At the end of the half, Princeton had stretched its lead to 8-3. After winning the first draw of the third quarter, the Tigers bolstered their lead to 9-3. With

this goal, the team rallied offensive momentum, as it went on to score four more, forcing Harvard Head Coach Devon Wills to call a timeout. As the score now read 13-3 in favor of Princeton, it looked as if Harvard’s hope for an upset was dead. However, after the break and speech from Wills, the Crimson struck back. Blaser secured the draw control and drove towards the net, firing the ball past Hughes and initiating a comeback opportunity for her team. Hodgson then had a stellar caused-turnover, leading to another Harvard goal as she set sophomore Callie Batchelder up for her first goal of the contest. Princeton was able to tally one more point as the clock dwindled to zero, but the Crimson kept up the competitive spirit despite Princeton’s 14-5 lead. In the final fifteen minutes, though, Harvard failed to match the Tigers’ quick pace.

“You won’t necessarily remember who scored the big goal, or had the most assists or the most saves. You will remember what kind of person they were and what kind of relationships you had with the people on your team,” he said.

“It’s special to be a guy who isn’t drafted,” Severo, offering another perspective, said. “It definitely brings in more eyes in the building and more opportunities for yourself, while also getting to play with really high class players who are going to go on to do some pretty special things once they leave Harvard.” Outside of the “eyes” that are drawn to Harvard, the junior also notices how these players improve the team. “They’re chasing the highest level and you’re chasing them.” The team’s devotion to the here and now is more important than the future. Donato says that he has “been able to see it as a player at Harvard, as a coach at Harvard, as a parent of a player at Harvard, and the one thing that remains the same is that we get really high character young men who embrace the challenge.” Being drafted is an incredible accolade that celebrates the skills of a player, but Miller explains that the true value in having such a high number of picks on Harvard’s roster is that it “shows how Harvard attracts great athletes, great students, great people.”

bianca.egan@thecrimson.com

The home team scored five more goals, extending its lead to 15-5. Then, Gilliam tallied her second goal of the game, but with only 3:36 remaining on the clock, it was too late for Harvard to go on an offensive streak. After Princeton snagged the resulting draw, Haven Dora, recently named to the Tewaaraton Award Watch List, fired home the final goal of the afternoon. When the final buzzer rang, the scoreboard read 20-6. Harvard struggled in the face of offensive powerhouses like MacDonald, who notched five goals and five assists during the game, tying Princeton’s record for the most points in a single contest. Blake also proved to be a challenge for the Crimson, as she put up a notable five goals and one assist. The Harvard team, bound to face more star-power in its upcoming games, will look to fine-tune its defensive strategies in the face of such players.ww The Crimson will look to rebound quickly from the loss as it continues its road trip against Holy Cross (5-2, 1-0 Patriot League) this Tuesday. Although they are not nationally ranked, the Crusaders have had a strong start to their season, falling only to Brown and the University of Massachusetts.

isabel.smail@thecrimson.com

women’s lacrosse huddles against Albany. CRIMSON MULTIMEDIA STAFF

Koskenvuo skates off the ice at the Bright-Landry Hockey Center. ASSMA ALREFAI — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Ian Moore, one of 12 draft selections on the 2024-25 roster, skates off with his teammates. SARAH G. ERICKSON — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Joe Miller skates up the ice against Northeastern. DYLAN J. GOODMAN — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

IN PHOTOS 20

Snapshots of Spring Break

BY CRIMSON MULTIMEDIA STAFF

SPLENDID