Last month, The New York Times profiled the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a First Amendment-focused nonprofit known for its College Free Speech Rankings and criticizing universities like Harvard for “abysmal” speech climates. Yet FIRE has also stepped in to defend those same institutions, including by filing a brief supporting Harvard in its federal funding lawsuit.
For FIRE, this isn't a contradiction but consistency. Its mission is defending free expression across the spectrum, no matter which side feels the chill. As FIRE President Greg Lukianoff says, the principle is to stand firm and “let the political chips fall where they may.”
Harvard’s mission depends on the same foundation. Academic excellence and the pursuit of Veritas require open debate and inquiry. At the same time, universities have responsibilities that public squares don’t. Harvard Yard isn’t Boston Common: to create the conditions for teaching and research, the University must set (and should consistently enforce) time, place, and manner rules based on conduct, not content.
FIRE’s data reveal Harvard’s challenges. In the 2025 rankings, released last September, Harvard finished last among 251 schools, with students reporting discomfort speaking openly and frequent attempts to block invited speakers. Harvard also ranked last in September 2023. From 2020 to 2025, FIRE documented 20 speech controversies at Harvard, more than Columbia (14), NYU (12), Penn (10), or Barnard (7). These included 13 deplatformings, 9 attempted disruptions, and sanctions against 23 scholars and 18 students. In that period, administrators were documented “vigorously defending free speech” only a handful of times.
Harvard doesn’t need to top FIRE’s rankings (and given the methodology, that’s unrealistic). But it does need a climate where disagreement is expected, inquiry is protected, and speech, however unpopular, is met with curiosity and debate, not suppression. For Harvard, speech isn’t a ranking to climb but the condition for fulfilling its mission. If the University forgets that, no metric will save it.
Tomorrow, FIRE will release its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings. Our special edition will provide a first look at Harvard’s results, followed by a live conversation with FIRE’s leadership on September 18. Register here and send us your questions in advance.
Ask 1636
Each week, we answer a reader question about Harvard and higher education. Send your questions our way!
Q: With Harvard’s federal funding case decided at the district court level, what is the status of its lawsuit over international student visas?
1636’s Take: The case Harvard v. DHS is still in the briefing stage, meaning both sides are filing written arguments for the judge to review. The central issue is whether the case should be dismissed outright. Unlike Harvard’s federal funding case where the University sought summary judgment (a ruling on the case’s merits without a trial), here the government is asking the judge to throw the case out entirely, without a trial and without ruling on Harvard’s claims.
For more context on what has happened in the case:
On May 22, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, which allows the University to enroll international students. More than a quarter of Harvard’s students rely on F- or J-visas and would have had to transfer schools or leave the country.
Harvard sued the next day and obtained an emergency court order blocking DHS from enforcing the revocation while the case proceeds. In its complaint, Harvard argues the revocation was retaliatory, punishing the University after it rejected an April 11 government letter demanding changes to hiring, admissions, and viewpoint diversity. Harvard also claims the action violated equal protection by singling it out among peer schools and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by skipping the required SEVP review process.
Days later, DHS retroactively initiated a formal SEVP review process by issuing a “Notice of Intent to Withdraw” Harvard’s certification, but it never rescinded the original May 22 revocation.
On August 8, the government filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the case was moot (because DHS stipulated it would not enforce the May order), that Harvard lacked standing, and that it failed to state a valid claim.
On September 5, Harvard filed its opposition, arguing the case is not moot since DHS never withdrew the revocation and “remains free to return to [its] old ways.”
The government is expected to file a reply before the case proceeds to a hearing.
Like Harvard’s federal funding lawsuit, Harvard v. DHS is before Judge Allison Burroughs, who last week issued an opinion that (on paper) restores over $2.2 billion in Harvard’s research funding.
Find this newsletter valuable? Forward it to a Harvard friend!
Events
Chicago, IL — September 15 from 6-8 p.m. CT: President Alan Garber will join a moderated conversation hosted by the Harvard Club of Chicago and Harvard Alumni Association. Register here.
Virtual — September 16 from 3:20-4:10 p.m. ET: Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker and Dartmouth president Sian Beilock will speak at Chronicle Festival’s roundtable “The Value of Viewpoint Diversity.” Register here.
Virtual — September 18 from 8-9 a.m. ET: Financial Times subscribers can join FT journalists and guests, including the president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities and former Sequoia chairman Michael Moritz, for “American Universities Under Pressure,” a webinar on how political scrutiny and funding cuts are affecting US higher education and its global competitiveness. Register here.
Virtual — September 18 from 8-9 p.m. ET: Join 1636 Forum and FIRE for an exclusive look at Harvard’s results in FIRE’s upcoming 2026 College Free Speech Rankings. The rankings — and 1636 Forum's first-look analysis — will be published on September 9, followed by a live discussion with FIRE leaders on Thursday, September 18, from 8-9 p.m. ET. Register here.
Cambridge, MA — September 25: MIT Free Speech Alliance’s third annual conference features keynote speaker Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and contributing editor to The Atlantic. Register for free here.
If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support 1636 Forum’s mission.
FYIs
Settlement Talks Stall Between Harvard and the Federal Government
Negotiations over a potential resolution between Harvard and the federal government have reportedly slowed. Weeks ago, some news outlets made it seem that a settlement was near completion.
According to The New York Times, talks have stalled amid internal White House divisions: some aides want to quickly secure a “political victory” for President Trump, while others argue the framework is too favorable to Harvard and are pushing for additional concessions like an independent compliance monitor. Harvard has opposed the idea of a monitor to date.
For more information, read our special edition on Burroughs’ federal funding ruling and what’s next for Harvard.
Harvard Cuts Course Assistant Pay, Scales Back Undergraduate Hiring in Math and CS
Harvard College reduced hourly pay for some undergraduate course assistants (CAs) from $23 to $21 after a reclassification by the Office of Undergraduate Education.
Under prior rules, CAs with in-class or lab duties were paid more; after reclassification, that subset was shifted to the lower-paid category even if their responsibilities did not change.
Several departments have also reduced CA hiring in response to budget constraints. Math cut upper-level CA staffing by about 25%, and CS50 reduced its undergraduate CA staff from 37 to 25.
Adam Hesterberg, associate director of undergraduate studies in Computer Science, said the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) gave priority to hiring graduate teaching fellows (especially those who lost research funding), which left fewer positions available for undergraduates.
The Harvard Graduate Students Union–UAW plans to file a “grievance,” arguing the University failed to provide notice or negotiate the pay change.
The reductions follow a University-wide hiring freeze, salary pause, and staff layoffs amid an announced $1 billion shortfall for fiscal year 2026.
ED Previews Rule to Ease Defunding of Title VI and IX Non-Compliant Universities
The Department of Education (ED) has signaled it will propose regulations to “streamline” the process of terminating federal financial assistance to institutions that “intentionally violate Federal civil rights laws” and refuse to come into compliance.
The rule would apply to Title VI (race, color, national origin) and Title IX (sex) enforcement, potentially codifying tactics the federal government has already used to freeze or revoke funding from schools accused of discrimination including Harvard, UCLA, Columbia, Penn. (Columbia and Penn have since regained access to funding through their resolutions.)
The proposal appears in the Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, a semiannual outline of possible regulatory actions. No draft text has been released. ED estimates a draft rule will be issued in September 2025, with a final version expected around June 2026.
House Appropriations Budget Proposal Cuts ED Funding by 15%
The House Appropriations Committee has proposed cutting ED fiscal 2026 discretionary budget by 15%, reducing it from about $79 billion to $67 billion.
The plan eliminates Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (FSEOG), cuts more than $450 million from Federal Work-Study, and reduces the Office for Civil Rights’ budget by $49 million (an office already facing staffing challenges).
Unlike the White House’s proposal, the House plan preserves the maximum Pell Grant ($7,395), as well as TRIO and GEAR UP programs.
To take effect, the plan must be reconciled with the Senate’s version by October 1 to avoid a government shutdown. The Senate’s bill keeps ED’s funding at $79 billion and also protects TRIO, GEAR UP, and other student aid programs.
More News
More News at Harvard:
The Washington Post: “Harvard beat Trump in court. Here’s what could happen next.” — feat. 1636 Forum
The Crimson: “‘Completely Unpredictable’: How Visa Risks Complicated Summer Travel for Harvard’s International Students”
Wall Street Journal: “White House Holds Many Levers in Fight With Harvard”
Bloomberg: “Cook Says Harvard Funding Fight Shows Trump’s Hidden Motives”
Boston Globe: “At first significant protest of new term, Harvard students, faculty call on university to stand against Trump’s demands”
The Crimson: “At Morning Prayers, Harvard’s Former Chief Diversity Officer Urges Students to Embrace Pluralism”
The Crimson: “After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard”
Boston Globe: “Harvard scientists laud federal court ruling in war with Trump administration”
The Crimson: “Harvard Needs to Look into Industry for Scientific Funding” — op-ed by Alex Xu (AB ’28)
The Crimson: “The Life and Times of The Canadian Harvard Jew” — op-ed by Isaac Mansell (AB ‘26)
The Crimson: The Trump Lawsuit You Haven’t Heard of Is the Real Game Changer — op-ed by History professor Kirsten Weld and Harvard Law professor Andrew Crespo (AB ‘05, JD ‘08)
More News Beyond Harvard:
Columbia Spectator: “Columbia will pay Jewish employees who experienced antisemitism $21 million as part of its government settlement. Here’s how it works, according to the EEOC’s acting chair.”
Higher Ed Dive: “University of California would need $5B if it lost federal funding, leader says”
Yale Daily News: “First years largely indifferent about Yale’s Trump strategy, survey finds”
The Daily Princetonian: “Eisgruber urges Class of 2029 to uphold scholarly rigor and university independence”
Higher Ed Dive: “‘Blatantly unconstitutional’: Student groups sue over Texas law limiting campus protests”
Wall Street Journal: “Another College President Quits” — by the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
Real Clear Politics: “University of California would need $5B if it lost federal funding, leader says” — by Stanford Hoover Institution Fellow and former Harvard Government professor Peter Berkowitz in response to this article by HLS professor Cass Sunstein (AB ‘75, JD ‘78)
Some Assembly Required: “Educating for Citizenship” — by Washington University in St. Louis Law Professor John Inazu