Connect with us

News

Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion

Published

on

Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion


Harvard University doesn’t get a complete free pass in its fight with President Donald Trump – as the government aid which it has welcomed is paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

play

President Donald Trump isn’t wasting any time implementing his agenda. We’re not even 100 days into his second term, and it’s been busy to say the least.

Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would fight wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in government and education, and he’s following through.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has taken aim at some of the country’s top schools, including Columbia University and Harvard, attempting to force them to fall in line. Trump is particularly displeased – for good reason – with how these universities have failed to address antisemitism on their campuses as well as with a glaring lack of ideological diversity among faculty and programs. 

And Trump is using the cudgel of federal funding to get his way.

Advertisement

In March, Columbia made significant concessions after the administration withheld $400 million in funding. 

Trump’s latest target is Harvard, and the government has already frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard, however, isn’t playing ball. 

“I think Harvard’s a disgrace,” Trump said April 17.

Even though Ivy League schools like Harvard and Columbia are private, the large sums of federal dollars that reach their campuses through student aid, grants and research funding always come with strings attached. 

Advertisement

If they don’t like what Trump is asking for, there’s an easy answer: Don’t take federal money. 

Michigan’s Hillsdale College offers a playbook other schools can follow. 

Hillsdale’s independence is tied to its freedom from government money 

Hillsdale, a small liberal arts institution, has made a big name for itself when decades ago it chose to eschew federal funding completely, including in the form of student aid, so that it didn’t have to bend to government demands and regulations. 

Grove City College in Pennsylvania has made a similar choice. 

Advertisement

And Hillsdale, my alma mater, is able to offer its students generous scholarships that make up for a lack of federal student loans. 

I know this from personal experience. I could not have afforded Hillsdale without the generosity of its donors, who believe strongly in the mission of the college. 

No doubt, Harvard, an extremely wealthy university with an enviable endowment (more than $50 billion), could find ways to supplant the federal funds if it so chose – at least until a more friendly (Democratic) president is back in the White House.

Advertisement

Harvard, however, seems defiant and unlikely to acquiesce to Trump.

In an open letter published April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote that what the Trump administration wants “threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government − regardless of which party is in power − should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Yet, Harvard doesn’t get a complete free pass from federal interference – as the government aid it has welcomed is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. 

Trump shouldn’t make the same mistakes Obama and Biden did 

Trump doesn’t like to lose, and he’s not taking Harvard’s resistance well. He has threatened to withdraw the school’s tax-exempt status as well as interfere with the enrollment of international students, both of which would be a serious blow to the college’s bottom line. 

I caution the president, however, against falling into the playbooks used by his predecessors. 

Advertisement

Even though I’m sympathetic with Trump’s concerns, I’m wary of government heavy-handedness, regardless of which party it’s coming from. And free speech organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have warned against the Trump administration’s latest actions. 

FIRE raised similar concerns during both the Obama and Biden administrations when they sought to erode free speech rights and campus due process under the guise of enforcing Title IX. 

(That makes former President Barack Obama’s “concerns” over what Trump is doing now very hypocritical.)

Similarly, Trump should avoid going after Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Hillsdale faced a lawsuit recently that sought to use the nonprofit tax exemption as a way to get the college to bend to federal regulations by equating the exemption benefit with federal assistance. Luckily, the federal judge didn’t buy that argument. 

If Trump can withdraw Harvard’s tax exemption, a future president unfriendly to a conservative school like Hillsdale could similarly weaponize its tax status. 

Advertisement

It’s better not to go down that road at all.

In the meantime, if Harvard doesn’t want Trump telling it what to do, then it would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s model.

Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques

Advertisement

News

Want to own a real T. rex? It could cost you $30 million

Published

on

Want to own a real T. rex? It could cost you  million

“Gus,” a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton, is pictured during a press preview at Sotheby’s in New York City on July 1.

Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption



toggle caption

Advertisement

Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images

If you ever wanted to own an actual T. rex and not just a toy, you now have a chance. But it’s going to cost you some bones. Millions of them.

The Tyrannosaurus rex fossil known as “Gus” will go up for auction Tuesday morning at Sotheby’s New York City office. The starting bid for the dinosaur is $19 million and the auction house estimates it could sell for $20 to $30 million.

Gus was found in Harding County, S.D., on private land in 2021, according to Sotheby’s. The T. rex skeleton, which is 38 feet long and 12 and half feet tall, is believed to be from the late Cretaceous period from about 67 million years ago.

Advertisement

“Judging from the overall size and degree of bone development it can be determined that Gus’ skeleton belonged to a very large, robust, adult individual,” the auction house said in the listing.

Thomas Heitkamp, president of Theropoda Expeditions, the company that excavated the site, said in a Sotheby’s video about the discovery that nearly a thousand pieces were collected.

The creature is named after the owner of the ranch where it was discovered, Gary “Gus” Licking. He died during the excavation process, which ran through 2023, and was not able to see Gus fully assembled, according to Cassandra Hatton of Sotheby’s.

“Gary had for years roamed around his 6,500 acre property and seeing T. rex teeth and little bits of fossils and such, and he realized that there was probably something really important under the ground,” Hatton said in the video.

Gus is one of the largest and most complete T. rex specimens ever found, according to Sotheby’s.

Advertisement

It’s not the first time dinosaur bones have been for sale to the highest bidder.

The first auction for a dinosaur was held by Sotheby’s in 1997. The creature, a T. rex named Sue, was purchased by a few large companies for the Field Museum in Chicago. It went for $8.4 million.

In 2024, Apex the stegosaurus sold for $44.6 million, the most ever for a dinosaur fossil. It was purchased by billionaire investor Ken Griffin, who loaned it to the American Natural History Museum in New York for four years.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 4.1-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Southern California

Published

on

Map: 4.1-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes Southern California

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A light, 4.1-magnitude earthquake struck in Southern California on Sunday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 3:38 a.m. Pacific time about 1 mile southeast of Frazier Park, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 4.4.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Sunday, July 12 at 11:54 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Sunday, July 12 at 2:24 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Mexico-US relations are already strained, but experts say they’re about to get worse | CNN

Published

on

Mexico-US relations are already strained, but experts say they’re about to get worse | CNN

The death of a Mexican man in Houston at the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement is threatening to upend already-strained relations between Mexico and the United States.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum took the unusual step of announcing at a press conference on Thursday that Mexico is seeking civil and criminal investigations in the US related to the deaths of 17 Mexican nationals during immigration enforcement operations or at detention centers.

These investigations aim to “protect the human rights of Mexicans in the United States,” the Mexican government said.

The impetus for the announcement was the ICE shooting death of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas last week. ICE officials said agents shot Salgado Araujo, whom they said was in the US illegally, after he rammed a law enforcement vehicle and refused to follow verbal commands during a traffic stop.

His family has disputed ICE’s account, telling CNN that the 52-year-old father of three would have stopped if he had known the car that followed him belonged to law enforcement.

Advertisement

At her press conference announcing the request for criminal investigations, Sheinbaum also called for petitions to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Asked about Sheinbaum’s comments, the US Department of Homeland Security defended ICE’s actions.

“ICE agents are trained to use the minimum necessary force to resolve dangerous situations to prioritize the safety of the public and our officers,” the agency said.

The agency also said that detainees in ICE custody “receive full due process, are provided with adequate food, water, and medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with their families and attorneys.”

Analysts who spoke with CNN said that Salgado’s death and Mexico’s response may signal a major rift between Mexican and US authorities.

Advertisement

“This is no minor incident,” said José Luis Valdés Ugalde, academic at the Center for Research on North America at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). “It affects the bilateral relationship and the pending issues that Mexico and the United States have before them,” including “security, migration, and trade.”

International affairs expert and newspaper columnist Fausto Pretelin said the relationship between Mexico and the United States was at “its worst moment” in the aftermath of the killing of Salgado Araujo. But he thinks Sheinbaum’s actions will damage relations further, for little more than political points gained within Mexico.

“It’s a performance,” Pretelin said of Sheinbaum’s announcement. “The opportunity to take these issues seriously is lost. And when I say seriously, I mean that diplomatic channels should be used.”

Yet some might argue that diplomatic channels have seen plenty of traffic, especially on this issue. Mexico’s government has already issued 11 diplomatic notes of protest to the US over the deaths of its citizens, Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco told reporters.

Now, his country had to go “beyond the diplomatic realm.”

Advertisement

While Pretelin and Valdés Ugalde have warned that Sheinbaum’s announcement spells trouble for US-Mexico relations, some experts believe that the Mexican president hasn’t gone nearly far enough.

Academic and columnist Tomás Milton Muñoz Bravo, professor of international relations at UNAM, says that this type of response should have come much earlier.

“It’s incredible that 17 deaths had to occur for Mexican authorities to finally announce a strategy that goes beyond the merely diplomatic to the judicial,” said Muñoz Bravo. “Of course, the announcement has been made, but I still want to see the actions that have been stated actually develop.”

Yet Valdés Ugalde points out that the US shows no signs of caring about Mexican criticisms of its immigration policy. Likewise, Valdés Ugalde said, Mexico has not known how to defend the migrant community and has made what he describes as “mistakes” in its foreign policy.

One of these, according to Valdés Ugalde, has been rejecting extradition requests for politicians allegedly linked to drug trafficking on the grounds of national sovereignty. This has given the Trump administration an opening to retaliate in other areas, such as the renegotiation of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which protects many Mexican exports from American tariffs.

Advertisement

“There are no signs of rebuilding the relationship; the relationship is very damaged by the attitudes of both governments and by Mexico’s defensive stance,” Valdés Ugalde said.

Muñoz Bravo said that the November midterm elections in the US could open an opportunity for Mexico if Republicans lose their control of Congress.

“What we’re going to see in November is extremely important,” he said. If Trump “does not have a majority in the chambers, there will be checks and balances that will even allow for room to negotiate with other actors in the United States.”

Until then, tensions between the neighbors remain high, with any further deaths of Mexican migrants threatening to deepen the rift.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending