Summers Says Harvard Student Ban ‘The Stuff of Tyranny’ — from bloomberg.com

Former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers blasted the Trump administration’s decision to block Harvard University from enrolling international students, calling on the institution to fight back. “This is vicious, it is illegal, it is unwise, and it is very damaging,” Summers, who is president emeritus of Harvard University, told Bloomberg TV. “Why does it make any sense at all to stop 6,000 enormously talented young people who want to come to the United States to study from having that opportunity?” “Harvard must start by resisting,” he said. “This is the stuff of tyranny.” Summers spoke to Bloomberg’s David Ingles on “The China Show.” (Source: Bloomberg)

 

GIFTED ARTICLE

Trump Administration Says It Is Halting Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
The move was a major escalation in the administration’s efforts to pressure the college to fall in line with President Trump’s demands.

The Trump administration on Thursday said it would halt Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, taking aim at a crucial funding source for the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college in a major escalation of the administration’s efforts to pressure the elite school to fall in line with the president’s agenda.

The administration notified Harvard about the decision — which could affect about a quarter of the school’s student body — after a back-and-forth in recent weeks over the legality of a sprawling records request as part of the Department of Homeland Security’s investigation, according to three people with knowledge of the negotiations. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

 

AI-Powered Lawyering: AI Reasoning Models, Retrieval Augmented Generation, and the Future of Legal Practice
Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 25-16; March 02, 2025; from papers.ssrn.com by:

Daniel Schwarcz
University of Minnesota Law School

Sam Manning
Centre for the Governance of AI

Patrick Barry
University of Michigan Law School

David R. Cleveland
University of Minnesota Law School

J.J. Prescott
University of Michigan Law School

Beverly Rich
Ogletree Deakins

Abstract

Generative AI is set to transform the legal profession, but its full impact remains uncertain. While AI models like GPT-4 improve the efficiency with which legal work can be completed, they can at times make up cases and “hallucinate” facts, thereby undermining legal judgment, particularly in complex tasks handled by skilled lawyers. This article examines two emerging AI innovations that may mitigate these lingering issues: Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which grounds AI-powered analysis in legal sources, and AI reasoning models, which structure complex reasoning before generating output. We conducted the first randomized controlled trial assessing these technologies, assigning upper-level law students to complete six legal tasks using a RAG-powered legal AI tool (Vincent AI), an AI reasoning model (OpenAI’s o1-preview), or no AI. We find that both AI tools significantly enhanced legal work quality, a marked contrast with previous research examining older large language models like GPT-4. Moreover, we find that these models maintain the efficiency benefits associated with use of older AI technologies. Our findings show that AI assistance significantly boosts productivity in five out of six tested legal tasks, with Vincent yielding statistically significant gains of approximately 38% to 115% and o1-preview increasing productivity by 34% to 140%, with particularly strong effects in complex tasks like drafting persuasive letters and analyzing complaints. Notably, o1-preview improved the analytical depth of participants’ work product but resulted in some hallucinations, whereas Vincent AI-aided participants produced roughly the same amount of hallucinations as participants who did not use AI at all. These findings suggest that integrating domain-specific RAG capabilities with reasoning models could yield synergistic improvements, shaping the next generation of AI-powered legal tools and the future of lawyering more generally.


Guest post: How technological innovation can boost growth — from legaltechnology.com by Caroline Hill

One key change is the growing adoption of technology within legal service providers, and this is transforming the way firms operate and deliver value to clients.

The legal services sector’s digital transformation is gaining momentum, driven both by client expectations as well as the potential for operational efficiency. With the right support, legal firms can innovate through tech adoption and remain competitive to deliver strong client outcomes and long-term growth.


AI Can Do Many Tasks for Lawyers – But Be Careful — from nysba.org by Rebecca Melnitsky

Artificial intelligence can perform several tasks to aid lawyers and save time. But lawyers must be cautious when using this new technology, lest they break confidentiality or violate ethical standards.

The New York State Bar Association hosted a hybrid program discussing AI’s potential and its pitfalls for the legal profession. More than 300 people watched the livestream.

For that reason, Unger suggests using legal AI tools, like LexisNexis AI, Westlaw Edge, and vLex Fastcase, for legal research instead of general generative AI tools. While legal-specific tools still hallucinate, they hallucinate much less. A legal tool will hallucinate 10% to 20% of the time, while a tool like ChatGPT will hallucinate 50% to 80%.


Fresh Voices on Legal Tech with Nikki Shaver — from legaltalknetwork.com by Dennis Kennedy, Tom Mighell, and Nikki Shaver

Determining which legal technology is best for your law firm can seem like a daunting task, so Legaltech Hub does the hard work for you! In another edition of Fresh Voices, Dennis and Tom talk with Nikki Shaver, CEO at Legaltech Hub, about her in-depth knowledge of technology and AI trends. Nikki shares what effective tech strategies should look like for attorneys and recommends innovative tools for maintaining best practices in modern law firms. Learn more at legaltechnologyhub.com.


AI for in-house legal: 2025 predictions — from deloitte.com
Our expectations for AI engagement and adoption in the legal Market over the coming year.

AI will continue to transform in-house legal departments in 2025
As we enter 2025, over two-thirds of organisations plan to increase their Generative AI (GenAI) investments, providing legal teams with significant executive support and resources to further develop this Capabilities. This presents a substantial opportunity for legal departments, particularly as GenAI technology continues to advance at an impressive pace. We make five predictions for AI engagement and adoption in the legal Market over the coming year and beyond.


Navigating The Fine Line: Redefining Legal Advice In The Age Of Tech With Erin Levine And Quinten Steenhuis — from abovethelaw.com by Olga V. Mack
The definition of ‘practicing law’ is outdated and increasingly irrelevant in a tech-driven world. Should the line between legal advice and legal information even exist?

Practical Takeaways for Legal Leaders

  • Use Aggregated Data: Providing consumers with benchmarks (e.g., “90% of users in your position accepted similar settlements”) empowers them without giving direct legal advice.
  • Train and Supervise AI Tools: AI works best when it’s trained on reliable, localized data and supervised by legal professionals.
  • Partner with Courts: As Quinten pointed out, tools built in collaboration with courts often avoid UPL pitfalls. They’re also more likely to gain the trust of both regulators and consumers.
  • Embrace Transparency: Clear disclaimers like “This is not legal advice” go a long way in building consumer trust and meeting ethical standards.

 

 

From The Neuron’s posting entitled, “20-Somethings Break AI”:

Anthropic’s Claude AI just pulled a classic AI move: it completely fabricated a legal citation, and then—plot twist—the lawyers actually used it in court. Awkward.

The scene: A Northern California courtroom, where Anthropic’s lawyers are battling music publishers. Claude decides to get creative and generates a citation out of thin air—complete with a made-up title and nonexistent authors. And get this: their “manual citation check” didn’t even catch it.

It’s like the AI equivalent of writing your homework, but then your dog actually eats it—except in this case, the dog actually wrote the homework, and it doesn’t make any sense. Nor does this metaphor, which is increasingly getting away from us…

This is far from the first time AI has fumbled in the legal arena, and it’s not exclusive to Claude. Earlier this week, another judge absolutely roasted law firms for submitting “bogus AI-generated research.” We seemingly see these headlines every week; here’s all the ones Perplexity and OpenAI Deep Research could dig up (remember, these too could have hallucinations in them!).

Anyway, talk about confidence, right? Feels like more of a lawyer problem than an AI problem. Consider this your friendly reminder to always check your work. Twice.

 

Welcome to Planet Money

The current economic upheaval has a lot of us scratching our heads and scrambling to look up terms like “trade deficit” and “reserve currency.” If only there was a place you could go where friendly voices break down what’s going on in a way that’s fun and easy to understand. There is a place. It’s called Planet Money.

On each episode of the Planet Money podcast, the hosts tell a sometimes quirky, often surprising story that helps explain a topic you might be hearing about in the news, from tariffs to GDP to memecoins.

They walk you through complex concepts using examples from everyday life, like Tupperware and scratch-off lotto tickets, and people you can relate to, like a guy who’s just looking for a fair way to distribute his chickens’ wares during the current egg shortage.

And when someone else’s story isn’t enough to illustrate an economic principle, the hosts take matters into their own hands. In the process, they’ve shot a satellite into space, started a record label, made their own vodka, and shorted the entire stock market – all to help you grasp how the things you see every day came to be.

Visit Planet Money twice a week and you won’t only better understand money – you’ll better understand the world.

 

From AI avatars to virtual reality crime scenes, courts are grappling with AI in the justice system — from whec.com by Rio Yamat
The family of a man who died in a road rage shooting incident played a video showing a likeness of him generated with AI.

Defense attorney Jason Lamm won’t be handling the appeal, but said a higher court will likely be asked to weigh in on whether the judge improperly relied on the AI-generated video when sentencing his client.

Courts across the country have been grappling with how to best handle the increasing presence of artificial intelligence in the courtroom. Even before Pelkey’s family used AI to give him a voice for the victim impact portion — believed to be a first in U.S. courts — the Arizona Supreme Court created a committee that researches best AI practices.

In Florida, a judge recently donned a virtual reality headset meant to show the point of view of a defendant who said he was acting in self-defense when he waved a loaded gun at wedding guests. The judge rejected his claim.

Experts say using AI in courtrooms raises legal and ethical concerns, especially if it’s used effectively to sway a judge or jury. And they argue it could have a disproportionate impact on marginalized communities facing prosecution.

AI can be very persuasive, Harris said, and scholars are studying the intersection of the technology and manipulation tactics.


Poll: 1 in 3 would let an AI lawyer represent them — from robinai.com

April 29 2025: A major new survey, from legal intelligence platform Robin AI, has revealed a severe lack of trust in the legal industry. Just 1 in 10 people across the US and UK said they fully trust law firms, but while increasingly open to AI-powered legal services, few are ready to let technology take over without human oversight.

Perspectus Global polled a representative sample of 4,152 people across both markets. An overwhelming majority see Big Law as “expensive”, “elitist” or “intimidating” but only 30% of respondents would allow a robot lawyer — that is, an AI system acting alone — to represent them in a legal matter. On average, respondents said they would need a 57% discount to choose an AI lawyer over a human.

.



Harvey Made Legal Tech Cool Enough for Silicon Valley to Care Again — from businessinsider.com by Melia Russell

In just three years, the company, which builds software for analyzing and drafting documents using legally tuned large language models, has drawn blue-chip law firms, Silicon Valley investors, and a stampede of rivals hoping to catch its momentum. Harvey has raised over half a billion dollars in capital, sending its valuation soaring to $3 billion.

 

What Happened When Trump Altered the Deal With Law Firms and Universities — from nytimes.com by Amanda Taub; this is a gifted article
Does the prisoner’s dilemma still apply when the rules break down?

A few weeks ago, several prominent American universities and law firms found themselves in what seemed to be a classic prisoner’s dilemma, courtesy of President Trump.

His campaign of retribution against law firms that represented or hired his political opponents, and against universities that engaged in “woke” policies or purportedly fostered antisemitism, was forcing them to make an unappealing choice.

Those who capitulated and struck an early deal with the White House, it seemed, might be spared the worst of Mr. Trump’s wrath, but at the cost of jeopardizing their independence. Standing up to the president risked even harsher punishment, particularly if other institutions stayed silent.

Columbia University made a deal with the administration. So did some of the largest law firms in the country. Recent changes, however, suggest that the dilemma is starting to look very different.

In the real world, however, instead of rewarding those who capitulated early, the Trump administration pressured them even more.

“Capitulation has a track record,” said Ms. Saunders, “and it’s not pretty.”

 

GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok… Wait, Which One Do I Use Again? — from thebrainyacts.beehiiv.com by Josh Kubicki
Brainyacts #263

So this edition is simple: a quick, practical guide to the major generative AI models available in 2025 so far. What they’re good at, what to use them for, and where they might fit into your legal work—from document summarization to client communication to research support.

From DSC:
This comprehensive, highly informational posting lists what the model is, its strengths, the best legal use cases for it, and responsible use tips as well.


What’s Happening in LegalTech Other than AI? — from legaltalknetwork.com by Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell

Of course AI will continue to make waves, but what other important legal technologies do you need to be aware of in 2025? Dennis and Tom give an overview of legal tech tools—both new and old—you should be using for successful, modernized legal workflows in your practice. They recommend solutions for task management, collaboration, calendars, projects, legal research, and more.

Later, the guys answer a listener’s question about online prompt libraries. Are there reputable, useful prompts available freely on the internet? They discuss their suggestions for prompt resources and share why these libraries tend to quickly become outdated.


LawDroid Founder Tom Martin on Building, Teaching and Advising About AI for Legal — from lawnext.com by Bob Ambrogi and Tom Martin

If you follow legal tech at all, you would be justified in suspecting that Tom Martin has figured out how to use artificial intelligence to clone himself.

While running LawDroid, his legal tech company, the Vancouver-based Martin also still manages a law practice in California, oversees an annual legal tech awards program, teaches a law school course on generative AI, runs an annual AI conference, hosts a podcast, and recently launched a legal tech consultancy.

In January 2023, less than two months after ChatGPT first launched, Martin’s company was one of the first to launch a gen AI assistant specifically for lawyers, called LawDroid Copilot. He has since also launched LawDroid Builder, a no-code platform for creating custom AI agents.


Legal training in the age of AI: A leadership imperative — from thomsonreuters.com by The Hon. Maritza Dominguez Braswell  U.S. Magistrate Judge / District of Colorado

In a profession that’s actively contemplating its future in the face of AI, legal organization leaders who demonstrate a genuine desire to invest in the next generation of legal professionals will undoubtedly set themselves apart


Unlocking the power of AI: Opportunities and use cases for law firms — from todaysconveyancer.co.uk

Artificial intelligence (AI) is here. And it’s already reshaping the way law firms operate. Whether automating repetitive tasks, improving risk management, or boosting efficiency, AI presents a genuine opportunity for forward-thinking legal practices. But with new opportunities come new responsibilities. And as firms explore AI tools, it’s essential they consider how to govern them safely and ethically. That’s where an AI policy becomes indispensable.

So, what can AI actually do for your firm right now? Let’s take a closer look.

 

DOGE abruptly cut a program for teens with disabilities. This student is ‘devastated’ — from npr.org by Cory Turner

If you visit the website for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), you’ll find a “Wall of Receipts” listing more than 7,000 federal contracts it has terminated.

One of these programs, cancelled on Feb. 10, was called Charting My Path for Future Success. It was a research-based effort to help students with disabilities make the sometimes difficult transition from high school into college or the world of work and self-sufficiency.

Stepping stones to post-school independence
Charting My Path was built on research that shows students with disabilities who get quality transition services “are more likely to be employed after high school. They’re more likely to be enrolled in post-secondary education, and they’re more likely to identify that they have a higher quality of life,” says Catherine Fowler, a special education researcher at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who has been involved with Charting My Path since 2019, when the contract began.

At the heart of Charting My Path was one of the most promising, research-based services: building students’ self-determination skills by working with them to set goals, then helping create concrete plans to achieve them.

Based on the early results he saw in Newton, John Curley says he was hopeful and calls the decision to cut Charting My Path “a huge mistake. I think investing in students with disabilities is investing in all of us because they’re part of our community, right? They’re our brothers and sisters, our kids, our neighbors, our coworkers.


From DSC:
If you don’t have a child with special needs, you probably don’t care about this article. But, as with so many things with us human beings, if we know of someone special to us who has disabilities, we suddenly care a lot more. Our youngest daughter fits right into this story. It could have been her pictured in this article. Such programs are needed and it sounded like this study was doing solid work. 

How does cutting this program make America great again? It doesn’t. It just makes life more difficult for the 1,600 high school juniors with disabilities that this study was helping (not to mention future students). Their pathways to a productive life just got harder, once again. I dare you to try and go figure out the spaghetti mess of how to get funding and assistance for a special needs youth graduating from high school — and all of the restrictions mentioned therein. And good luck to you if you are that individual and your parents are no longer alive. 


 

 

We Visited Rumeysa Ozturk in Detention. What We Saw Was a Warning to Us All. — from nytimes.com by Edward J. Markey, Jim McGovern, and Ayanna Pressley. This is a gifted article.

When we met Ms. Ozturk in Basile, she told us she feared for her life when she was taken off the streets of her neighborhood, not knowing who had grabbed her or where they were taking her. She said that at each step of her transit — from Massachusetts to New Hampshire to Vermont to Louisiana — her repeated requests to contact her lawyer were denied. Inside the detention center, she was inadequately fed, kept in facilities with extremely cold temperatures and denied personal necessities and religious accommodations. She suffered asthma attacks for which she lacked her prescribed medication. Despite all this — and despite being far away from her loved ones — we were struck by her unwavering spirit.

Why did the Trump administration target her? By all accounts, it’s because she was one of the authors of an opinion essay for The Tufts Daily criticizing her university’s response to resolutions that the Tufts student senate passed regarding Israel and Gaza.

This is not immigration enforcement. This is repression. This is authoritarianism.
.

.

 

Record Law Grad Employment Rates Suggest AI Isn’t Killing Off Lawyers Just Yet — from lawnext.com by Bob Ambrogi

At a time when legal doomsayers have been predicting the imminent replacement of junior associates by AI legal assistants, the law school graduating class of 2024 has delivered a contrary verdict: Human lawyers aren’t going anywhere just yet.

According to the latest American Bar Association employment report, the legal job market is showing not just resilience, but growth. The data, reported as of March 17, 2025 — approximately 10 months after spring graduations — reveals that 82.2% of the 38,937 2024 law school graduates secured positions requiring bar admission — a two-point increase from the previous year.

Also see:


Leeds to host UK’s largest LegalTech event outside London as sector booms in the region by 50% — from yorkshirepost.co.uk by Jo Jessop
Leeds is gearing up to welcome hundreds of Legal and Tech professionals [on 4/24/25], as it hosts the fourth annual LegalTech in Leeds Conference – now the largest LegalTech event outside of London.

Set to take place on April 24 at Cloth Hall Court, Leeds, the 2025 conference comes at a time of extraordinary growth for the region’s LegalTech sector, which has seen a 50% increase in LegalTech firms between 2023 and 2024, according to a new report from Whitecap Consulting.

The event, themed “People & Technology,” will spotlight how digital innovation is transforming the legal sector while keeping human experience at its core. This year’s agenda will delve into the practical ways individuals and organisations can collaborate to deliver more efficient, accessible, and forward-thinking legal services. With hundreds of attendees expected, it’s set to be a landmark gathering of legal professionals, lawyers, tech professionals, entrepreneurs, academics and policymakers.


How Legal Tech is Reshaping the Broader Legal Ecosystem — from community.nasscom.in

The legal profession, long characterized by tradition and precedent, is undergoing a transformative shift driven by technological innovation. Legal technology, or “legal tech,” is not merely a tool for efficiency; it is a catalyst redefining the practice of law, the structure of legal services, and the accessibility of justice.

1. Streamlining Legal Operations
2. Enhancing Access to Justice
3. Transforming Legal Education and Roles
4. Redefining Client Expectations and Service Delivery
5. plus several more


 

Fight the Trump Administration’s Defiance of the Constitution and Courts — from 5calls.org

On April 14th, the Trump administration openly defied a unanimous order from the Supreme Court by refusing to bring back a person they knowingly sent to a torture prison in El Salvador by mistake.

Since Day 1, the Trump administration has been consistently eroding the constitutional separation of powers and system of checks and balances. They have…


From DSC:
Be more like Harvard.

Harvard sues the Trump administration in escalating confrontation — from washingtonpost.com by Susan Svrluga and Danielle Douglas-Gabriel
Lawsuit argues that government actions, including freezing $2.2 billion in federal funding, violated the First Amendment and didn’t follow legal procedures.

Harvard University sued the Trump administration in federal court Monday, the latest move in the escalating feud between the nation’s wealthiest school and the White House.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts against multiple federal agencies, seeks to block the Trump administration from withholding federal funding “as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard.”

Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard, said in a message to the university community Monday that the Trump administration’s actions are unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.

From DSC:
Trump has WAAAAY overstepped his jurisdiction and has crossed boundaries left and right. He has single-handedly wreaked havoc across the world — especially with the trade wars and by undermining the Federal Reserve. But he has also trampled on the rights of people living in America. Perhaps we need to write or revisit the job description of a President of the USA. But that’s not really going to help. He wouldn’t listen to it or read it anyway.

 

How to Use AI and Universal Design to Empower Diverse Thinkers with Susan Tanner — from legaltalknetwork.com by Zack Glaser, Stephanie Everett, and Susan Tanner

What if the key to better legal work isn’t just smarter tools but more inclusive ones? Susan Tanner, Associate Professor at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law, joins Zack Glaser to explore how AI and universal design can improve legal education and law firm operations. Susan shares how tools like generative AI can support neurodiverse thinkers, enhance client communication, and reduce anxiety for students and professionals alike. They also discuss the importance of inclusive design in legal tech and how law firms can better support their teams by embracing different ways of thinking to build a more accessible, future-ready practice. The conversation emphasizes the need for educators and legal professionals to adapt to the evolving landscape of AI, ensuring that they leverage its capabilities to better serve their clients and students.


Maximizing Microsoft Copilot in Your Legal Practice — from legaltalknetwork.com by Tom Mighell, Dennis Kennedy, and Ben Schorr

Copilot is a powerful tool for lawyers, but are you making the most of it within your Microsoft apps? Tom Mighell is flying solo at ABA TECHSHOW 2025 and welcomes Microsoft’s own Ben Schorr to the podcast. Ben shares expert insights into how lawyers can implement Copilot’s AI-assistance to work smarter, not harder. From drafting documents to analyzing spreadsheets to streamlining communication, Copilot can handle the tedious tasks so you can focus on what really matters. Ben shares numerous use-cases and capabilities for attorneys and later gives a sneak peek at Copilot’s coming enhancements.


 

 

Outdated Microschool Laws Turn Parents into Criminals — from educationnext.org by Erica Smith Ewing
By over-regulating the pandemic-era schooling alternative, states ignore families’ constitutional rights

Public schools do not work for everyone. But options have increased since 1922, when Oregon tried to ban private education. The Supreme Court shut down that scheme fast. But now, after more than 100 years, political insiders are rallying again to stop a new source of choice.

The target this time is microschooling, a Covid-era alternative that has outlasted the pandemic. Key players in the movement will gather May 8–9, 2025, at the International Microschools Conference in Washington, D.C. I will join them.

Most likely, I will meet educators running all kinds of programs in all kinds of community spaces. Microschools blur the lines between home, public, and private schooling—combining elements from all three models.

The result is a fourth category of schooling that hinges on flexibility. Some parents pool their resources and hire outside instructors. Other groups rotate teaching duties among themselves, gathering daily or perhaps only once or twice per week. These are the do-it-yourselfers. Professionals also get involved with standalone enterprises and national networks.

 

What are colleges’ legal options when threatened with federal funding cuts? — from highereddive.com/ by Lilah Burke
Higher education experts said colleges could work together or lean on their associations if they take up a legal fight against the Trump administration.

Understand your allies
In fact, colleges may struggle to fight the administration on their own.

“I don’t think that institutions should necessarily fight it by themselves,” said Jeffrey Sun, a higher education and law professor at the University of Louisville. “I don’t think they’ll win.”

What will have more power is several institutions, or even many, working together to fight the attacks on higher education.

“I don’t think we have an option unless we work in collective action,” Sun said.


Harvard University won’t yield to Trump administration’s demands— from highereddive.com by Natalie Schwartz
Alan Garber, the Ivy League institution’s president, said the university wouldn’t forfeit its “independence or its constitutional rights.”

Harvard University President Alan Garber said Monday that officials there would not yield to the Trump administration’s litany of demands to maintain access to federal funding, arguing the federal government had overstepped its authority by issuing the ultimatum. 

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber wrote in a community message

The move tees up a battle between the Ivy League institution and the Trump administration, which threatened the university with the loss of $9 billion in federal funding over what it claimed was a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism.


Harvard Professors Sue the Trump Administration While Other Universities Are Targeted — from iblnews.org

Two groups representing Harvard University professors (the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter) filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration on Friday, saying that the threat to cut billions in federal funding for the institution violates free speech and other First Amendment rights.

The Trump Administration announced two weeks ago that it reviewed about $9 billion in federal funding that Harvard receives and would send a list of demands to unfreeze the money.

In a statement, Andrew Manuel Crespo, a law professor at Harvard and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter, said the “Trump administration’s policies are a pretext to chill universities and their faculties from engaging in speech, teaching, and research that don’t align with President Trump’s views.”


OPINION: For our republic to survive, education leaders must remain firm in the face of authoritarianism — from hechingerreport.org by Jason E. Glass
We face direct threats to the values around access, opportunity and truth our schools are meant to uphold

Across the country, education leaders are being forced to make some tough decisions — to choose between defending core values, such as equity and historical truth, or yielding to political coercion in hopes of avoiding conflict. There is no strategy that does not involve conflict and trade-offs. Every education leader operates in their own political context with unique legal and cultural constraints.

But make no mistake: Inaction is not neutral. Even the decision to do nothing is a choice, one that has consequences.


Northwestern to self-fund federally threatened research — from highereddive.com by Laura Spitalniak
Leaders at the well-known institution said the support would sustain “vital research” until they had a “better understanding of the funding landscape.”

Northwestern University will pull from its coffers to continue funding “vital research” that has been threatened by the Trump administration, the private institution announced Thursday.


Trump is bullying, blackmailing and threatening colleges, and they are just beginning to fight back — from hechingerreport.org by Liz Willen
After Harvard rejected the president’s demands, more university leaders have started to speak out — but many say a bigger response is needed

Many hope it is the beginning of a new resistance in higher education. “Harvard’s move gives others permission to come out on the ice a little,” McGuire said. “This is an answer to the tepid and vacillating presidents who said they don’t want to draw attention to themselves.”

Harvard paved the way for other institutions to stand up to the administration’s demands, Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, noted in an interview with NPR this week.

Stanford University President Jonathan Levin immediately backed Harvard, noting that “the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution.”

“I tell them, you will never regret doing what is right, but if you allow yourself to be co-opted, you will have regret that you caved to a dictator who doesn’t care about you or your institution.”

 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian