Give Me the Money: Harvard, Hubris, and the End of Government Money

Let’s think through Harvard’s argument.

Harvard—the wealthiest university in the country, sitting on an endowment so large it could run tuition-free indefinitely—claims that it is discrimination for the government to stop giving it money to teach discriminatory content.

There are important lessons here for parents, students, and legislators.

This is precisely the attitude I’ve been highlighting on my Substack: your typical secular humanities professor believes they are owed taxpayer money. Not just free to speak in their classrooms and on social media, but entitled to public funding to teach racial discrimination.

Let’s break this down:

First, no one is owed government money. Harvard professors can teach whatever they want. No one is stopping them. But they can’t force others to pay them to do it. Now, if students don’t receive an actual education, they might sue for breach of contract—but that’s a different issue altogether. But the claim by Harvard is that if you don’t give me government money to say whatever I want then the government is censoring me. How far does that go? Play it out.

Second, this isn’t about censorship. Harvard hasn’t lost the freedom to speak. It’s just lost the expectation that others must fund its speech. There’s a major difference between the government shutting down a class and the government simply not funding a program. What we’re seeing is the latter—and it’s democracy in action. In November, the American people overwhelmingly voted to stop funding hate in our universities. This is what we voted for.

Third, this is a masterclass in academic hubris. These humanities departments not only teach discrimination under the banner of “anti-discrimination”—they believe you, the taxpayer, are morally obligated to pay them to do it. Imagine any other profession acting this way. It would be a different story if Harvard or the government told a professor “you’re fired” for class content. But this isn’t that.

Fourth, all grant money comes with conditions. Gross ethical or legal violations can and should mean losing funding. Teaching that one race, sex, or identity group is inherently guilty or virtuous is not just bad scholarship—it’s a gross ethical and legal violation. DEI and CRT are not exempt. The government isn’t even saying “Harvard can’t teach that,” it’s just saying “we won’t pay you to teach that.”

Finally, every grant application process has a selection component. Some grants are accepted and funded and some are not. In science, if the grant is deemed not to advance science, then it won’t be funded. It should be the same in the humanities. However, unlike science, relativism and skepticism reign in the humanities. There is no truth, beauty, and goodness. Or, these are corrupted into the conflict theory of oppressor/oppressed. Thus, when you hold a humanist’s grant application to a standard and say “this does not advance the cause of the humanities because it teaches false things” the humanities professor is shocked. “But it’s my truth from my lived experience.”

To conclude: Harvard has not lost its academic freedom. It’s lost the sweet deal it had to be paid by taxpayers. It no longer gets to be the richest university in America while forcing the rest of us to subsidize its ideological crusade. This is precisely the kind of blindness Romans 1:18–32 warns about—when those who claim to be wise become fools and exchange the truth for lies and the consequences of a darkened mind.

So Harvard, by all means, keep being you. You’re doing the nation a favor by revealing exactly why change was needed.