The difference between these 2 letters can be summarized in one word: trust. The 11 April letter was what one sends if trust had broken down completely. In that letter the government claimed it needed to involve itself in details such as who gets admitted and who get hired. The implication was that there was no longer any trust in Harvard.
Giving a fellowship to the HBS attacker is extremely corrosive to trust of Harvard. It rewards someone punished for an antisemitic act. It solidifies the situation after the 11 April letter in which there is a fight over $3 billion of existing grants and contracts, and possible restrictions on foreign students and future grants and contracts for Harvard.
Doubtless Harvard Law School will say that the Law Review is a separate organization and its actions are not controlled by Harvard. To make that claim credible Harvard needs to take several steps:
• Issue a statement saying that the actions of the Law Review do not represent Harvard.
• Ban faculty members from serving on the board of the Law Review.
It is worth knowing the details of how damaging this fellowship to the HBS attacker is.
On 3 April the Trump administration sent a reasonable set of demands to Harvard: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25879226/april-3-harvard-preconditions-letter.pdf
On 11 April the Trump administration sent an unreasonable set of intrusive demands to Harvard (there are varying reports as to whether it was intended to be sent that day, later, or at all): https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf
The difference between these 2 letters can be summarized in one word: trust. The 11 April letter was what one sends if trust had broken down completely. In that letter the government claimed it needed to involve itself in details such as who gets admitted and who get hired. The implication was that there was no longer any trust in Harvard.
Giving a fellowship to the HBS attacker is extremely corrosive to trust of Harvard. It rewards someone punished for an antisemitic act. It solidifies the situation after the 11 April letter in which there is a fight over $3 billion of existing grants and contracts, and possible restrictions on foreign students and future grants and contracts for Harvard.
Doubtless Harvard Law School will say that the Law Review is a separate organization and its actions are not controlled by Harvard. To make that claim credible Harvard needs to take several steps:
• Issue a statement saying that the actions of the Law Review do not represent Harvard.
• Ban faculty members from serving on the board of the Law Review.
• Ban the Law Review from using the Harvard name and using a URL containing the name Harvard, applying the policies at https://trademark.harvard.edu/policy-on-use-of-harvard-names-and-insignias and https://trademark.harvard.edu/use-of-harvard-names-and-insignias-in-electronic-contexts
For those who didn't see the Washington Free Beacon article about the editor and article choices at the Harvard Law Review it is at https://freebeacon.com/campus/exclusive-internal-documents-reveal-pervasive-pattern-of-racial-discrimination-at-harvard-law-review/
Insulting damn