The decision to stop financing covered 900 projects regarding, among others Alzheimer's diseases, cancer, autism and prevention of suicides among veterans. The funds were blocked in response to allegations of anti -Semitism on the campus, and the Trump administration claimed that Harvard violated the provisions on civil rights.
The referee stood up to Donald Trump.
Judge Allison D. Burroughs decided, however, that it was the federal administration that broke the law, celebrating the required procedures. She emphasized that the actions taken by the university were not taken into account to combat anti -Semitism. She called the decision to freeze the funds “an ideologically motivated attack on leading universities of the country”, which violated federal law.
Burroughs pointed out that suspension of research may threaten efforts to save lives, financial resources and the environment. Criticized the lack of investigation into the possible connections of laboratories with anti -Semitic behavior or with people of Jewish origin.
The judge admitted that Harvard “in recent years has been struggling with anti -Semitism and could (and should) be better to deal with this problem. However, she noticed” a small relationship between the research that was about the cancellation of grants and anti -Semitism. “
“The Washington Post” reminded that Trump had already attacked Burroughs earlier, calling her “a judge hate Trump” and “total disaster.”
The White House repeats the attacks on Harvard University
“WP” assessed that the ruling was a significant victory for Harvard in a widely commented legal dispute. The spokeswoman for the White House Liz Huston, however, renewed criticism towards the university and the judge.
“Harvard has no constitutional right to taxpayers' money and is still not eligible for grants in the future,” she said, announcing an appeal against Burroughs.
Professor of the Harvard History Kirsten Weld, chairwoman of the American Branch of the Association of University Professors and the plaintiff in this case, portrayed the ruling as “a great, decisive victory for academic freedom.” She expressed the hope that she was sending a signal, “that universities cannot be destroyed in this way, and it is worth opposing and fighting.”
