Harvard University on Monday rejected the Trump administration demands that connect $ 9 billion with federal funding to comply with changes in university governance practices and employ them, and the viewpoint of “audit operations” in academic departments, students, faculty and other measures.
The financing, which has been frozen more than two billion dollars, hours after Harvard responded to requests, supports research that “led to leading innovations through a wide range of medical, engineering and scientific fields,” according to a message, he sent Alan Garper's President to Harvard community on Monday afternoon.
The government cited concerns about hostility to the campus in explaining its decision to stop financing at Harvard University and many other higher education institutions.
On Tuesday, we sought reactions to the financing discounts in talks throughout the campus.
Amberly xie
Doctorate in the third year is a student in applied physics
“I feel at some basic levels, and it violates our rights as individuals, researchers and scholars – as a university as well,” said Xi, who is partially focused on quantum computing.
Like many students and scientists, they are concerned that the main financing discounts in institutions such as Harvard University will slow scientific progress in some cases.
“Universities play a major role because they have a lot of research,” she said. “There are emerging companies and companies that do this type of work, but I feel that it is really in universities where a lot of basic work is done, and a lot of pioneering work in terms of allowing us not only to understand the platforms like those I work with, but also help in putting them in real applications.”
Andrew Terry
An older colleague at the Moussavar Rahani Business and Government Center at Harvard Kennedy School; Former member of the House of Commons in the British Parliament; The current member of the House of Lords
“I think there is a much larger job, and this is for all those who disagree with the dramatic, and in my opinion, serious decisions made by the new administration to speak,” said Terry, who studies organizational reforms in the advanced Western economies of his time at Kennedy School.
He said that everyone who participated in academic and politics should be angry with the Trump administration position.
Of course, as a non-American citizen, I am concerned about the broader effects of the world-all of the prospects for growth and prosperity, but also for his security and stability, “he said. “What I do not ask is for people to talk about the interests of the world, but talking about the interest of the United States of America. This weakens the United States and feels briefly and security of millions of Americans.”
Joshua Cherris
A colleague of an Edmund and Laila Safra Ethics Center; Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University
“I am studying, to some extent, authoritarian regimes, and I believe that some of what we see – although it is not equivalent to the entirely formed tyranny – is starting to deal with it in terms of trying to dictate the government the ideas that are being taught, which can be expressed and cannot be expressed,” said Chirins. “I think it is important that Harvard University and other universities do not link in light of what I think is clearly an attack on academic freedom and self -government.”
Cherris is studying political theory, especially defenses and liberal criticisms. He said that he worries the impact of financing on his fellow scholars inside and outside his field.
He said: “We may have to reduce many of the most useful works that we do in medical science and technology – the things that have already benefited from America and have benefited from the world in very practical ways.”
