From: allin
The White House has initiated a review of federal grants and contracts with Harvard University, demanding significant changes to its policies, particularly concerning Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This action stems from a broader push for merit-based systems in education and concerns about the university’s ideological leanings and financial practices [00:28:44].
White House Demands and Harvard’s Response
On March 31st, three federal agencies—Education, Health, and the GSA—announced a review of 256 million in contracts allocated to Harvard [00:28:44]. By April 11th, the White House sent a letter to Harvard’s president and the head of Harvard Corporation outlining a series of demands, including:
- Implementing merit-based hiring and admissions for staff and students [00:29:08].
- Canceling all DEI programs [00:29:12].
- Reforming international admissions to prevent the enrollment of students “hostile to American values” [00:29:14].
- Increasing diverse viewpoints across all departments [00:29:23].
- Abolishing admission practices that serve as an ideological litmus test [00:29:27].
Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, refused to comply [00:30:00]. In response, the White House froze 60 million in contracts [00:30:00]. The administration is also considering revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status [00:30:00]. This has happened once before in the 1970s with Bob Jones University, which lost its tax-exempt status due to overtly racist practices [00:29:50].
Arguments for Intervention
Promoting Meritocracy
According to Chamath Palihapitiya, Harvard has fallen to the “absolute bottom of the rankings with respect to free speech” and has lost multiple Supreme Court cases regarding its admissions practices [00:30:36]. He argues that Harvard, with its “side doors” and “back doors,” engages in discrimination, and the opposite of discrimination is meritocracy [00:30:47]. Chamath contends that Harvard’s discriminatory practices made it fashionable for other schools to discriminate, impacting high schools and middle schools (e.g., removing AP calculus and AP math because it “made people feel bad”) [00:31:01].
He emphasizes the need for meritocracy to compete globally, noting that countries like China and India operate purely meritocratic education and workforce systems, which he describes as a “meritocratic soup” [00:31:40]. To address this, he suggests that “the most severe and extreme measures must be undertaken to fix this” [00:32:29].
Legal Precedent and Current Practices
David Sacks points to the 1983 Supreme Court case Bob Jones University versus the IRS, where Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status due to a racially discriminatory policy [00:40:15]. He draws a parallel to the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions versus Harvard case, where the Supreme Court found Harvard’s affirmative action policies, which used race as an admissions factor, violated the 14th Amendment [00:41:03].
Despite losing the case, Harvard claimed to remove race information from admissions [00:41:30]. However, they updated their application by replacing the long-form essay with five shorter questions asking how applicants would contribute to a “diverse student body” [00:41:47]. Sacks views this as “suspiciously similar” to DEI statements used in faculty hiring, which he believes discriminate against conservatives or those who think race shouldn’t be a factor [00:41:59]. He asserts that Harvard is still trying to engineer student classes based on race, and the administration is “correct” in pressing Harvard on this issue [00:43:13]. Harvard, he concludes, wants to “have its cake and eat it too”—engaging in racial discrimination while receiving federal funding [00:44:43].
Arguments Against Intervention/Critiques
Embarrassment and Hypocrisy of Higher Education
Comedian Tim Dillon describes current higher education in America as “embarrassing” [00:33:41]. He believes these institutions have become “quasi religious cult[s] of insanity” that prioritize characteristics outside of intelligence and merit for admission and academic achievement [00:33:57]. He argues that if universities continue on this path, they should not be taxpayer-subsidized and must “live and die on their own” [00:34:18]. Dillon also notes the lack of ideological diversity on campuses and among faculty, stating that the politics demonstrated are “aesthetic” and hypocritical, not genuinely aimed at helping the working class or minorities [00:34:50].
Dillon views DEI as a mechanism for the “establishment” to maintain power and influence by “shutting out certain ideas and certain people” while offering “ceremonial nods” through “optical choices” like hiring a “female CEO of color” or someone who is “Indian” [00:55:56]. He suggests that such initiatives are not true inclusion but rather a way to preserve existing power structures [00:55:46].
Financial Autonomy and Government Influence
David Friedberg raises questions about the role of the federal government in funding institutions. He highlights Harvard’s substantial endowment of 4 billion in annual income [00:37:00]. He questions whether institutions with such financial resources truly need federal funds [00:38:17]. Friedberg also questions the basis for government influence, asking if it is statutory or merely “politically motivated, socially motivated” [00:38:30]. He argues that the majority of Harvard’s capital is not used for educating students but rather for reinvestment and generating new capital, operating more like a “technology development center” [00:39:52].
Chamath notes that universities, particularly those reliant on federal funding, have become “ideologically liberal” or “socialist-oriented” because they are less subject to market feedback [00:45:03]. He cites an example of a potential Federal Reserve hire who was asked to “play up” his “Indianness” rather than focusing on his expertise, leading to him declining the role [00:50:56]. This reliance on non-meritocratic factors, Chamath argues, leads to a “slowdown in innovation” and “malais[e]” in institutions [00:51:30]. He concludes that Harvard, being run “like a corporation” and a vanguard institution, must be “woke[n] up” to its “responsibility for America” [00:51:57].
Impact on Hollywood and Comedy
Tim Dillon describes the entertainment industry during the “peak DEI peak cancellation” period as one where executives, who he describes as “monsters,” suddenly expressed interest in “marginalized voices” [00:57:06]. He attributes this shift to a perceived “pot of gold” in this area, rather than genuine care [01:00:00]. However, he notes that Americans generally disliked the “patronizing” content, and it did not make money [00:59:19]. Once it ceased to be profitable, Hollywood executives “rediscovered the profit motive” and focused on creating entertaining content and viewership numbers [00:59:39]. The attempted cancellations of comedians largely failed because people “realize that people are flawed, fallible and human” and that makes them entertaining [01:00:21].