Trump officials cut billions in Harvard Funds after university defiance requirements Trump Administration star-news.press/wp

The American educational department freezes around $ 2.3 billion in the Federal Funds at Harvard University, the Agency announced on Monday.

The announcement comes as the IVY League school decided to fight against the requirements of the White House to break into anti-Semitism and alleged violations of civil rights, including exclusion, capital and inclusion programs.

“Harvard’s statement strengthened the problem of thinking that is endemically at the most prestigious universities and faculties – that the Federal investment does not come with the responsibility to support civil rights laws,” said the member of the fight against anti-Semitism in the statement.

Department of Education The Work Decision on Fight against Anti-Semitism states in a statement, it froze 2.2 billion dollars in grants and 60 million dollars in a multi-annual value of the Harvard contract.

In the letter of Harvard on Friday, the administration invited to a wide government and management reforms, a request that the Institute of Harvard called “deserving” employment, as well as the audit of the study bodies, faculties and leadership of their positions on diversity.

Requirements, which are an update from the previous letter, also invite to ban the person mask, which appeared to target pro-Palestinian protesters; Close his diversity, capital and inclusion, which writes to teach students and staff “to some extent judgment on each other on the basis of raw race and identity stereotypes”; And the pressure on the university to stop recognizing or finance “any student group or a club that supports or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence or illegal harassment.”

The Management Board also demanded that Harvard cooperates with the Federal Immigration Authorities.

Harvard’s president said in the letter that the University would not comply with the requirements of Trump administration to dismantle their diversity program and limit student protests in exchange for their federal financial resources.

“None of the Government – whatever the party is in power – what private universities should dictate, and in which areas of study and investigations, adding that Harvard took over extensive reforms for resolving anti-Semitism.

Garber said the demands of the Government were politically plus.

“Clearly clear that the intention does not work with us to deal with anti-Semitism in cooperative and constructive way,” he wrote. “Although some of the demands that have been erased by the government aimed at anti-Semitism, most represent the direct government regulation of” intellectual conditions “at Harvard.”

On Monday, Barack Obama has published the University: “Harvard has set up other institutions for improper and taking concrete steps to achieve all students and mutual respect. Hope other institutions follow.”

The requirements of the Trump Administration encouraged a group of alumni to write to university leaders who call it “legally disputed and refuse to respect the illegal requirements that threaten academic freedom and self-government.”

“Harvard today stood up for integrity, values ​​and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anura Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not bring bullying and authoritarian whims.”

He also caused the protest over the weekend of the Harvard community members and from the inhabitants of the Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday, causing cuts.

In their lawsuit prosecutors claim that Trump Administration failed to follow the steps required by you before they start cutting funds, and informing the reduction and in the University and Congress.

“These shifts, but unspecified requests are not focused on the causes of the irregularity of the Federal Law. They allegedly strive to impose political views on Harvard administration and committed aduction of adverse speeches,” the plaintiffs wrote.

Edward Helmore contributed to this report