May 27, 2025 • 36 mins
The latest blow in a lengthy feud between the Trump Administration and Harvard University continues with an effort by the Trump Admin. to end all federal contracts with the prestigious school. President Trump said on Monday of this week that he is considering taking $3 billion of previously awarded grant money for scientific and engineering research away from Harvard and giving it to trade schools. The feud started with an attempt by the Trump Admin. to cut down on antisemitism plaguing college campuses, where Harvard conceded to some of Trump’s demands, but not all demands were deemed reasonable by the school leading to a contentious back and forth. Why is Trump still going after Harvard?
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boxton's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. That is
up to the minute score on the Red Sox game.
I can attest to that, but hey, you know, it's
not what you call a big offensive night for either
team in Milwaukee. Now let's get back to the issues
at hand. I have tried. We spoke on Friday night
(00:27):
a little bit about this, but the more I've thought
about this, the more I am perplexed. Normally, I can
figure the motives of most politicians because I've covered politicians
for a long time. So if you remember, the Trump
administration sent a letter to Harvard in April, they've been
(00:52):
in they were in communications with them and the Harvard
lawyers who are outside council. They're not Harvard lawyers per se.
They are lawyers hired by Harvard, including Robert Herr. He
was the for assistant US attorney who interviewed President Biden
(01:19):
in October of twenty twenty three. The interview was about
the papers, in large part about the papers that had
been found in the president's the former president's garage and
near his corvette that he was so proud of. And
(01:41):
if you remember, her was criticized by Democrats because he
had basically said that Biden didn't understand a lot of
the questions and gave on responsive answers to the deposition
the questions that were asked by her special council her,
(02:02):
and he came away with the conclusion that he referred
to Biden, I think as a confused older person. He
used pleasant language, but essentially said that there was no
way that then in twenty twenty three, President Biden would
(02:28):
be capable of standing any sort of a trial. So
basically her in effect shut down the investigation of what
did the president know and when did he know it?
About the papers that he had kept going back to
his days in the Senate, And of course that all
came out of the investigation that the Biden Justice Department
(02:52):
had conducted, the doubt with the raid of mar A
Lago and the boxes of documents that President then former
President Trump allegedly had in his possession that he kept
that he should not have kept, et cetera. But so so,
Her is not somebody who is unreasonable. He's sort of
(03:13):
he's a he's a good lawyer for for Harvard to hire,
and the other lawyer I do not know William Burke,
that both lawyers deep deep in Washington law firms. So
here's here's a little bit of the letter. Here's my
bottom line. My bottom line is that this letter was
(03:37):
in effect a letter that said, look, you're right on
many many items, and we have we have changed our ways.
We're representing Harvard, but we are telling you, on behalf
of Harvard, that we have changed our ways and we
realize that we need to do more. So I want
(03:58):
to read just some of thesements that were made. Now,
this obviously did not satisfy the administration, and now they're
trying to prevent Harvard, trying to knock out their five
oh one C three status, which would have a real
impact on Harvard because that would mean people who contribute
to Harvard would no longer be able to take those
(04:20):
contributions as tax deductions. And in addition, if Harvard was
earning any interest of dividends on their fifty three billion
dollar endowment, they then could potentially lose their tax exempt
status and be taxed on that. So that would mean
that the fifty three billion dollar endowment would diminish quickly
(04:42):
because of two things. One of some contributions would dry up,
and then taxes would have to be paid on interested dividends.
And I would suspect that on fifty three billion dollars,
all of that is invested by Harvard University. So this
is the letter, and just let me start off with
a couple of them, just to show you the tone
(05:04):
of the letter. The tone is not confrontational. The tone
is concessionary. So this is the letter Harvard. It's addressed
to the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service to GSA,
the Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health
(05:25):
and Human Services, and the Acting General Counsel of the
US Department of Education. We represent Harvard University the lawyer's right.
We're writing in response to your letter to April dated
April eleventh. This letter was dated April fourteenth, and that
letter was addressed to Alan Garvin, the Harvard's president, and
Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the group
(05:46):
that actually runs Harvard. Quote, Harvard is committed to fighting
anti Semitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Anti Semitism and discrimination of any kind not only are
abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard's value, but also threatening its
academic mission. Goes on to say, to that end, Harvard
has made and will continue to make lasting and robust structural,
(06:08):
policy and programmatic changes to ensure the university is a
welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues
to abide in all respects with federal law across its
academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a
pluralistic community, free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,
whatever their source. Okay, a little bit of lingo there.
(06:35):
Over the past fifteen months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy
and programmatic measures. Fifteen months takes us back to December
of twenty twenty three, when the former president of Harvard,
Claudie Gay, had that disastrous appearance in front of Congress
which cost her her job. She resigned as president. It
(06:58):
meaning Harvard has made changes to its campus use policies,
adopted new accountability procedures, imposed meaningful discipline for those who
violate university policies, enhanced programs designed to address bias and
promote ideological diversity and civil discourse. Hired staff to support
these programs and support students, changed partnerships, dedicated resources to
(07:21):
combat hate and bias, and enhanced safety and security measures.
All as a result, Harvard is a very different place
today from where it was a year ago. That's an
acknowledgment right there that Harvard all of those things have changed.
And these are things that the Trump administration could point to,
in my opinion, with great pride and say, look what
(07:44):
we've accomplished. Our pressure has accomplished this. The paragraph continues,
these efforts and additional members measures the university will be
taking against anti semitism not only are the right thing
to do, but also are critical to strengthening Harvard's community
as a place in which everyone can thrive. I'll read
(08:05):
more of the letter when I get back, But the
point that I'm trying to make, and I hope the
point that I'm making clear to you, is Harvard has
made concessions. Now. I don't understand why the Trump administration
feels it has to continue to go after Harvard. Colombia behaved,
(08:27):
and Columbia's professional staff and their faculty and their students
behaved much worse than Harvard did. In the wake of
October seventh, there's no question about that. And in for example,
the entire last academic year, for some reason, President Trump
(08:50):
is not willing to take the victory. I think it's
a huge mistake. He has bigger fish to fry right now.
The economy, the border Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, the tariffs.
These are huge issues. The failure which of any of them,
(09:11):
could do irreparable harm to his legacy and to his administration.
If you can explain to me what makes Donald Trump tick.
They have put in fine bold print that they have
changed policies. And I'm sure that if the Trump administration said,
(09:33):
please break down for us in a second follow up
letter the specific changes you've made, I'm sure Harvard would
be very happy to do that. What is the president
and his staff thinking? At some point public opinion will
swing from the president to Harvard, whether he realizes.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
That or not.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Six one seven, two five four ten already six one seven?
Is the president incapable of taking a victory lap? I
don't understand it. Uh? It is. It is certainly dumb politically, UH,
And I think it's counterproductive. I'd love to get your take.
We're coming back on Night Side. Maybe you can figure
(10:19):
it out, I shore Kan.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
All right, So I want to continue here just for
a moment, and then we'll go to phone calls. Be fact,
I'm going to phone. Let me go to phone calls
right now. You know the point I'm making up. I'll
have to re emphasize it here. But you know, Harvard
has made concessions. This this I just don't get it.
Let me go to Sam and Medfid see what Sam thinks.
(10:48):
Hey Sam, welcome to Nightside. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
So I'm doing great, So hellout you and thanks for
taking my call.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
You're very welcome. Thanks for thanks for joining us. My
You know, my belief is that Harvard has actually made concessions,
has has said this is what we've done. Why would
the president not turn around and declare victory and say
him now I'm moving on to other things. What's wrong
with that strategy?
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Ah? I don't know, something stokes his ego or something.
I mean, why kick the dead house? They already made concessions.
You got to make the lab focus on Ukraine. Those
rare minerals deal who work with Putin and focus the
energy is where you get more buck for the bangrad
than beating all the good institutions in your own country. Right,
it does not you got what you wanted, they changed
(11:40):
and just move on.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, I mean, even if even if let us say,
a year from now, he felt that they did not
follow through, he can always go back and resurrect his
war against Harvard. But with he could quote from this
letter and say Harvard has acknowledged they've changed. They can
use He could use Harvard's words against them, And if
(12:05):
a year from now things that aren't going as well
as he wants them to go, he could say, look,
I was I was a gentleman, I walked away. I acknowledge,
but they have not followed through, and now we're really
going after I don't it's mystifying to me. I guess,
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (12:22):
Maybe maybe Harvard in the past never called him for
some graduation ceremonies or something, so that must have stalked
to the ego. But he should let it go. He
should take the high road.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
I guess. Yeah, Uh, are you a Trump supporter or no?
Speaker 5 (12:39):
You know, I think I'm told in the past, then
I'm a big believer for whosoever is doing the right
thing for the country.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
I believe more in Yeah.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
I believe more in actions than words. Everything else is
words are cheap.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Oh, I'm with you on that. But my question, I
guess what my question is.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
I'm independent dependent.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Okay, So what I'm saying is, you're not somebody. There
are a lot of people who love him and he
can do no wrong, and then there are people who
don't like him and he can do no right. But
if you're an independent.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
Good He's done good things about immigration. I'll have to
give him that. But I mean everybody has good in that.
Some things are good, but some things are not good invited.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think he's making a mistake. I think he's spending
political capital here that he doesn't have to spend on
a fight that he could easily claim. Hey, I'm right,
they can. They made concessions, Sam, Thank you much. I
appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Thank you very much, thank you. Thanks, thanks for taking
me pleasure talking to all.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Right, let me go to Ed in Worcester. See what
he thinks. I think Ed is kind of favorably inclined
generally to Trump. I hope I haven't mischaracterized you, Ed.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
No, no, no, I'm I'm completely in favor of this.
I don't think it's an unwise political move at all,
not not.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
For his base.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
I think his base is very enthusiastic about it.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
So's his basis thirty eight right, you got to get
more than your base in twenty twenty six to hold
the House or increase your your membership in the House.
You heard what I read in the letter that was
written that was written to him on August fourteenth. Why
(14:23):
would he not take those words and say, hey, I've won.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Well, two things, don't. I don't think they're sincere. I
don't believe that they're sincere about making any meaningful concessions.
And secondly, you know, he's he's only got a short
time in office, and he's got a even shorter time
till the midterm elections. If he wants to do important things,
he has to frontload them. And I think he knows
(14:48):
that and that's why he's giving everything, especially this such
a priority. I mean, I just don't. I don't take
these people at their word, don't. I don't trust them
anymore than I would trust Latimer. There's another that's something
I disagree with Trump on. I wish you wouldn't trust
that guy.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Well, look, uh what, Look, he's got so much on
his plate head, you know, nothing.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
More important than this, nothing more important than this?
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Oh really okay? I would argue, I would argue that
dealing with Iran and the whole Middle East, a boiling
pot of whatever, is pretty important. I would argue that
the tariff, the fights on the fight on tariffs, as
it might impact for better or worse than national economy.
(15:40):
I think he's he's done well on the border, and
I think that from his perspective, he pretty much can say, hey,
I closed, I closed the border as I promised I would.
But I don't know that getting Harvard to you know,
he can't micromanage Harvard. He can't micromanage any of these places.
Do you think that the Supreme Court as currently constituted
(16:05):
is going to give him the right to tell Harvard
whether or not they can or any of any college
in America whether or not they can admit foreign students.
Do you think the Court as currently composed will support
him on that.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I think they'll support him that he can cut off
their funding, and I certainly think the Republican majorities in
Congress want to cut off their funding, but they can
do what they want, but they can't do what they
want with taxpayer money and with a tax exemption. And
I think he should go beyond that.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I think, how do you how do you remove the
tax exem status of any company that has the tax
exempt status? You know as well as I do. You're
a lawyer. The concept of the burden of proof is
upon him in this situation, or upon the administration to
remove tax exem status. If they're going to focus on
Harvard and Columbia, it would be an easier task if
(16:57):
they wanted to get rid of tach, get rid of
five or once three across the board, but that would
have to be done by Congress.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
And that's I think they should.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I think I said that before on your show. I
think they should.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah, well, so, okay, you think that's a political winner
in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
If you don't win the culture or nothing else matters. Well,
if you don't win the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Okay, I hear you. I guess you and I are
going to see it fundamentally differently. I look at this
letter and I think to myself, there is an intermediate
victory that he could declare. He could say these are
the words that the Harvard lawyers have written to my administration.
I accept the words as written. I take them at
(17:41):
their word. I assume they will follow through on their words.
We will check back in a year to see if
they're followed through.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Okay, right, yours? I want to I want to be
the first. I want to be the first one to
announce on me or something I've been saying for I
don't think we're moving their tax exact is enough. I
would go into these colleges and universities. I would nationalize them.
I would confiscate all their property.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
That's that's good.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
That's got you know?
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Oh yeah, uh, that you know. I guess I'm flabbergasted
by that. By what right? By what right? Now? We
are now we are talking about state fascism for real.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Well, any any any government on earth has the right
to nationalize property if it gives compensation.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Wait a second, Wait a second. You you got what
the government might have a right to do doesn't mean
it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Ed you're serious, I said earlier, if you don't win
the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Well, I don't think you win the culture by overreacting,
and and and and and putting arm beans on people
and putting them in funny little uniforms. I don't think
that America or maybe five percent of the country would
support that, but but that would be the that would
be the extent of it. We have reached a fundamental disagreement,
my friend. As always, thank you for your call. Thank
(19:10):
you very much. Okay, I said that I thought that
Ed was supporting I. And by the way, Ed is
very intelligent, lawyer out of Worcester, very intelligent. But I
think that is way over at the top, way over
the top. Back on Night's Side, right after the news.
If that doesn't light it up, I don't know what will.
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
It's Nightside, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Well. I think Ed was an interesting caller. I think
le we go to Donna in Northborough. Hey, Donna, welcome
next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Hey Dan, happy to be here. How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
I'm doing just great? Where where do you stand on
this great debate? I I just sometimes you gotta you gotta,
you know, when you go to Las Vegas and you've won,
sometimes you take the money and you walk away.
Speaker 6 (20:05):
Well sometimes, but I believe it's the country at stake
at this point, so you might need to let that
ride a little bit. I have been fascinated by what
President Trump is doing. I'm an independent I go where
I think the country will do best. Okay, and and
(20:26):
I thought Trump was the right choice. I think most
people did with So yeah, that's more than more than fifty.
So I'm thinking the wax on wax off. You know,
like in the beginning of the Karate Kid, nobody knew
(20:47):
why he was doing wax on wax off, but when
it came, when it counted, then you found out. So
I'm seeing that that Trump is uh revealing himself in layers.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Okay, I don't get the karate kid metaphor, but that's
our analogy. But I'm not a karate kid guy. But
that's well.
Speaker 6 (21:13):
I think that we don't know what he's doing. I
don't think anybody but him and the people that he
has doing this are aware of, you know, where where
the bar is and if he's.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Trying to test, if he's trying if what your argument
is that he's trying to test the powers of the presidency.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
No, no, no, what my argument is is that I
don't know, and you don't know where he's going with this,
Where he's going with this, well, right.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
But I'm saying right, but but I think that ultimately
we're talking about the powers of the presidency. I mean,
I don't think the president has the power to prevent
universities from uh enrolling students foreign students. I don't see.
I don't see where that power exists anywhere.
Speaker 6 (22:07):
In my opinion, I don't think that's his goal. I
don't think that's his goal at all. I think that
he's using that as a chip to gain what he
ultimately wants, which is fairness. You know, you're looking at
fairness and sports, and women's sports in particular. You're looking
at fairness with regard to race, cultures, ethnicity, sexuality. All
(22:32):
of that fairness is in question, you know, in different areas.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
And guess what in many of those areas, I might
agree with where I think he's going. But I don't
think it's fair to try to tell Harvard, as a
university that's been around since sixteen thirty six and a
fairly successful, one private university, that they can or cannot
(22:59):
accept students who happen to be from outside the United States.
I think that is way beyond any power that the
founders imagine. I agree the president would have, so I
just and I just.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
I agree with you, But I honestly don't think that's
where he's trying to go. I think he's just using
that as a bargaining chip. Look at the letter from her,
Look at he's gotten somewhere. And I agree with you.
In some cases, maybe that would be, you know, you
take all the chips off the table because you're winning.
But I don't know where he's going with it.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Well, I just I guess I don't know where I want. Yeah,
I don't know where he's going either, But I will
tell you this. I think I think the strategy that
he's currently employee employing is going to be dangerous to
his u to his presidency, and dangerous to him electing
more Republicans in twenty twenty six. That's the point I
(23:57):
was trying to make that your're sometimes in politics. Politics
is the art of compromise, and as smart politician will say, Okay,
I'm not going to get everything I want, but I'm
going to get something, and I do have something in
this letter from her, And he could he could go
on and say, look, we're making progress admitted. You know,
he's not claiming her is admitting, and the other lawyer's admitting.
(24:20):
I think that's if he was smart and not a maglomaniac,
because he's beginning to me looking like a meglomaniac that
he somehow wants to run the admissions office at Harvard.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Does huh?
Speaker 6 (24:35):
I don't think he does. I really don't think he does.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Well, I'll tell you, well, when you figure out where
he's going, I want you to call me back, because
I think you're going to figure it out before me.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Together.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Thanks, don appreciate you call.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
Have a good one, all right, Take care.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
No one knows Harvard University better than my caller, Harvey Silver.
Gleat Harvey, if you can bring some clarity to this situation.
I know you you were not a fan of Donald Trump,
but just from a strategic point of view, I don't
understand the strategy.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
I think I do, Dan, Okay, what is it? He
wants to subject gate the richest, the most powerful, the
oldest university in the nation because it refuses to heal
to his commands. Colombia folded like a cheap suit.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Well, I think Columbia. I think Columbia had a lot
to be responsible for it. To be honest with you,
I think Columbia is a different situation than Harvard, to
be honest with you.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
And I think that I think that they're they're what
they allowed to happen on their campus, the Jewish students
and what they allowed to happen on their campus. And
some of the comments that were made there was that
one professor from from Columbia who was quoted on camera.
He was saying that that October seventh exhilarated him.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
I mean, I agree with I agree with all of that, Okay,
but Harvard has decided to draw the line. And what Trump,
what's bothering Trump is not anti Semitism. I don't think
he gives a damn about yous about anti semitism.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Fair enough, Okay, I'll accept that for that. I'll accept
that for the that argument go ahead.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
What bothers him is that Harbor has stood up to him.
Alan Garber the provost, and Jehan Manning the provosts, and
Alan Garber the president have said no. And that is
what bugs him the most.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Okay, you heard me. Read that last paragraph, and you're
more familiar with the Garber letter because you talked You
talked to Garber, and I don't yes that that last
that para in which they said, over the last fifteen months,
Harvard's done this, They've done this, They've done this, they
had there was a litany of things that they have done.
If you were Donald Trump's lawyer and you've defended people,
(27:11):
you know who you weren't necessarily fond of, let me
put it like that, as any good lawyer would what
advice would you give him? Would you tell him at
this point? Would you tell him what I'm what I
would say to him. Look, you have statements from Harvard
here which support that support your position. Take the victory,
say that you'll check back a year from now, but
(27:32):
walk away from it from now. Would you would you
not advise your client if it were if it were
Donald Trump to do that?
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Of course I would. But that isn't what Donald Trump wants.
Fair Enough, he doesn't care about any of these issues.
He cares about subjugation.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
He at at the end of the day, as his lawyer,
don't you have to say to him you're going to
lose on this. You you might you might win in
on uh some issue here or there. But on most
of these issues, you're going to lose. You're not going
to be able to take away their five or one
C three status.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Dan, Yeah, what makes you think he's going to obey
a court order?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I think it's I think it's called I think it's
called the Justice Department. I think it's called the US
Supreme Court. I think it's called, if necessary, the US Military.
I think that he would be insane if if if,
I mean absolutely certifiably insane, if we ever got to
the point that he was going to defy a court order,
(28:39):
which would be then backed.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Nobody, nobody ever accused Donald Trump of being sane. Let
me point something out.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I think he's more sane than people realize. To be
honest with.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
You, let me let me, let me let me point
something out. You talked about the law firm that represents Harvard.
Is that the firm of Wilma Hale Washington.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
No, no, no, no, no, no. Wilmahale does not. And
you know as well as I do, that will Mahale
made some concessions, et cetera. No, these these are two
individual lawyers, William Burke with un Emmanuel your car and Sullivan,
I'm unfamiliar with that firm. And then Robert Hurt, who
I'm very familiar with King and Spalding, and he was
the guy that did the depositions with that deposition with
(29:25):
President Biden in October twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
I'm very samated with Quinn Emmanuel, a partner who recently retired.
Captain Sullibum was dean of the Harvard Law School for
many years.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Yes, sure, her name's on the mastead YEP. Okay, so well,
I just look, I think that if you know, if
people really believe that, I find it impossible to think
that even if he has hired and is now employing
(29:59):
some bad people, that's he's smart enough to know. I
just think it's impossible to think that he would defy
a US Supreme Court order. That's all. That's all. I
think that.
Speaker 4 (30:13):
Nobody ever accused him of being smart. He's wiley.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
He's wiley. He's also been able to come back and
done something that no other president other than Grover Cleveland
had done to be able to come back. And I
never thought that he would be re elected after I
never thought he'd be elected in twenty sixteen, and I've
underestimated Donald Trump many times. Okay, I will admit to that,
(30:38):
and I will acknowledge that, but I mean, yeah, okay,
we'll see.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
It. Say have harbored cry uncle. He wants to win
this battle.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I think that cried uncle already. And I think that
if he was smart, he would he would accept win
and then say I will continue to monitor them. And
he's got other things on his plate right now, which
in my opinion, how much more important taris the economy,
the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine whatever. Anyway, Harvey as always,
(31:19):
thank you for your wisdom, Thank you for your wisdom
and your and your perspective. It's it's well needed. Thank you.
On a break, Gotta get to a break. Coming right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 5 (31:31):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I'm gonna go next to Matt and Franklin. Matt, you
were next to Nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (31:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
I'm a tough time trying to figure out what Trump's doing.
It seems like he's tearing the DOJ into his like
frivolous lawsuit department, and he's kind of like all over
the map on like what he is trying to accomplish.
In his second term, and uh, it's like he's not
gonna win. And my question for you is, like, could
(32:04):
some of not necessarily trauma because some of his cabin
people get sued civilly from Harvard after this all over.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
No. No, most people who are UH in official public
offices either immune from any sort of a civil lawsuit
or they are they're indentified. I mean, if there was
a a cabinet official who went out and and and
held up a bank tonight, could he be he or
(32:34):
she be prosecuted, of course. But if in the course
of their uh actions as as a public official, you know,
took an action that they they might lose that action
in court, but that they cannot They're not going to
be sued then in a civil fashion. No.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Absolutely, like breaking the law with some of these things
they're doing.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
No, if you talk about breaking the law, Uh, that's
that's a criminal statute. Okay. But these are primarily policy questions.
Now Trump can say, well, Harvard hasn't gone far enough.
That's a policy question, okay, So he's fine there. Or
if someone if he directs someone in his in his
(33:21):
administration to file a lawsuit or to to file a
motion for this or for that. That's he's trying to
impose policies, so he would be that's not a problem.
But but politically there comes a point in time where
as you said, he's doing things that might appear to
be frivolous. Look, you've got tariffs, You've got Russia Ukraine,
(33:45):
you have a big, beautiful tax bill that is in
front of the Senate, which maybe is really a lynchpin
of his administration. You have all of these important battles,
not to mention the border, uh, as well as his
ability to send people out of the country who are
here for no good reason, are here to cause problems,
(34:09):
and in many cases to send people out of the
country who have been convicted of criminal behavior. Those are important.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Yeah, I mean, I agree on that's up, but it
seems like it's all right, I'm gonna get rid of
the Department of Education, but while I'm doing that, I'm
gonna have a Department of Education, get rid of Harvard
and then oh, I'm going to get rid of the
I R S, but I want the I R S
at the same time to uh get rid of the
tax um status. And then while I'm doing this, he's.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
He's not going to get rid of the I R S.
And I also don't think that he can. I don't
think he can say to Harvard. You know, if Harvard,
for example, tomorrow said we have decided we are no
longer accepting students of a certain racial category uh to
to come to our school because we hate people who
are of this racial category, then that is when he
(34:59):
could pu vely probably withdraw the five A one seed
free status. But that's not what Harvad's doing. Harvard might
be admitting, in Donald Trump's opinion and in my opinion,
too many students from overseas. But but that's a decision.
That's Harved's decision, not my decision, not Donald Trump's decision,
not your decision. That's the that's the point I'm trying
(35:20):
to make.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Yeah, I just think he is going to have a
miserable time with the midterms, and it's gonna be like, well,
like you're going to just stick around.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Truly, he'll be truly a lame dock. He's going to
be a lame duck president after the midterms because he
won't be able to run for a third term despite
his musings. No Supreme Court is going to say Oh, yeah,
we'll overturn. We'll allow you to run for a third term.
I mean, that's I've always looked at that as he's
trolling people. He's in their head, rant free. But to
(35:52):
pursue Harvard after Harvard has made what I would construe
with concessions. This is boilerplate language that he could use
to say, Look, Harvard did bend. I forced Harvard to bend.
It was a great victory for the Trump administration. And
now we're going to make sure that they continue with
these policies the promises that made. Let's move on. That
would be the smart thing to do, in my opinion,
(36:13):
but obviously I'm not in the majority at this point.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Yeah, I just think it's gonna drag on for like
the whole year, and then well we're gonna get what
We're gonna get closer and closer to the mid terms
without accomplishing anything, and then he will pay.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
A price and the Republicans will pay a price. Thank you, Matt,
appreciate your call. Here comes the Ted. We're gonna stay
with it. The only line we have one line at
six months, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty, and
we have one line at six months, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty conversation has been a little longer than I
want them to be. We will pick up the pace
starting with Tom, Lou and Jim, and we have room
(36:47):
for you coming back on Nightside.
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boxton's Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. That is
up to the minute score on the Red Sox game.
I can attest to that, but hey, you know, it's
not what you call a big offensive night for either
team in Milwaukee. Now let's get back to the issues
at hand. I have tried. We spoke on Friday night
(00:27):
a little bit about this, but the more I've thought
about this, the more I am perplexed. Normally, I can
figure the motives of most politicians because I've covered politicians
for a long time. So if you remember, the Trump
administration sent a letter to Harvard in April, they've been
(00:52):
in they were in communications with them and the Harvard
lawyers who are outside council. They're not Harvard lawyers per se.
They are lawyers hired by Harvard, including Robert Herr. He
was the for assistant US attorney who interviewed President Biden
(01:19):
in October of twenty twenty three. The interview was about
the papers, in large part about the papers that had
been found in the president's the former president's garage and
near his corvette that he was so proud of. And
(01:41):
if you remember, her was criticized by Democrats because he
had basically said that Biden didn't understand a lot of
the questions and gave on responsive answers to the deposition
the questions that were asked by her special council her,
(02:02):
and he came away with the conclusion that he referred
to Biden, I think as a confused older person. He
used pleasant language, but essentially said that there was no
way that then in twenty twenty three, President Biden would
(02:28):
be capable of standing any sort of a trial. So
basically her in effect shut down the investigation of what
did the president know and when did he know it?
About the papers that he had kept going back to
his days in the Senate, And of course that all
came out of the investigation that the Biden Justice Department
(02:52):
had conducted, the doubt with the raid of mar A
Lago and the boxes of documents that President then former
President Trump allegedly had in his possession that he kept
that he should not have kept, et cetera. But so so,
Her is not somebody who is unreasonable. He's sort of
(03:13):
he's a he's a good lawyer for for Harvard to hire,
and the other lawyer I do not know William Burke,
that both lawyers deep deep in Washington law firms. So
here's here's a little bit of the letter. Here's my
bottom line. My bottom line is that this letter was
(03:37):
in effect a letter that said, look, you're right on
many many items, and we have we have changed our ways.
We're representing Harvard, but we are telling you, on behalf
of Harvard, that we have changed our ways and we
realize that we need to do more. So I want
(03:58):
to read just some of thesements that were made. Now,
this obviously did not satisfy the administration, and now they're
trying to prevent Harvard, trying to knock out their five
oh one C three status, which would have a real
impact on Harvard because that would mean people who contribute
to Harvard would no longer be able to take those
(04:20):
contributions as tax deductions. And in addition, if Harvard was
earning any interest of dividends on their fifty three billion
dollar endowment, they then could potentially lose their tax exempt
status and be taxed on that. So that would mean
that the fifty three billion dollar endowment would diminish quickly
(04:42):
because of two things. One of some contributions would dry up,
and then taxes would have to be paid on interested dividends.
And I would suspect that on fifty three billion dollars,
all of that is invested by Harvard University. So this
is the letter, and just let me start off with
a couple of them, just to show you the tone
(05:04):
of the letter. The tone is not confrontational. The tone
is concessionary. So this is the letter Harvard. It's addressed
to the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service to GSA,
the Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health
(05:25):
and Human Services, and the Acting General Counsel of the
US Department of Education. We represent Harvard University the lawyer's right.
We're writing in response to your letter to April dated
April eleventh. This letter was dated April fourteenth, and that
letter was addressed to Alan Garvin, the Harvard's president, and
Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the group
(05:46):
that actually runs Harvard. Quote, Harvard is committed to fighting
anti Semitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Anti Semitism and discrimination of any kind not only are
abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard's value, but also threatening its
academic mission. Goes on to say, to that end, Harvard
has made and will continue to make lasting and robust structural,
(06:08):
policy and programmatic changes to ensure the university is a
welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues
to abide in all respects with federal law across its
academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a
pluralistic community, free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,
whatever their source. Okay, a little bit of lingo there.
(06:35):
Over the past fifteen months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy
and programmatic measures. Fifteen months takes us back to December
of twenty twenty three, when the former president of Harvard,
Claudie Gay, had that disastrous appearance in front of Congress
which cost her her job. She resigned as president. It
(06:58):
meaning Harvard has made changes to its campus use policies,
adopted new accountability procedures, imposed meaningful discipline for those who
violate university policies, enhanced programs designed to address bias and
promote ideological diversity and civil discourse. Hired staff to support
these programs and support students, changed partnerships, dedicated resources to
(07:21):
combat hate and bias, and enhanced safety and security measures.
All as a result, Harvard is a very different place
today from where it was a year ago. That's an
acknowledgment right there that Harvard all of those things have changed.
And these are things that the Trump administration could point to,
in my opinion, with great pride and say, look what
(07:44):
we've accomplished. Our pressure has accomplished this. The paragraph continues,
these efforts and additional members measures the university will be
taking against anti semitism not only are the right thing
to do, but also are critical to strengthening Harvard's community
as a place in which everyone can thrive. I'll read
(08:05):
more of the letter when I get back, But the
point that I'm trying to make, and I hope the
point that I'm making clear to you, is Harvard has
made concessions. Now. I don't understand why the Trump administration
feels it has to continue to go after Harvard. Colombia behaved,
(08:27):
and Columbia's professional staff and their faculty and their students
behaved much worse than Harvard did. In the wake of
October seventh, there's no question about that. And in for example,
the entire last academic year, for some reason, President Trump
(08:50):
is not willing to take the victory. I think it's
a huge mistake. He has bigger fish to fry right now.
The economy, the border Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, the tariffs.
These are huge issues. The failure which of any of them,
(09:11):
could do irreparable harm to his legacy and to his administration.
If you can explain to me what makes Donald Trump tick.
They have put in fine bold print that they have
changed policies. And I'm sure that if the Trump administration said,
(09:33):
please break down for us in a second follow up
letter the specific changes you've made, I'm sure Harvard would
be very happy to do that. What is the president
and his staff thinking? At some point public opinion will
swing from the president to Harvard, whether he realizes.
Speaker 3 (09:57):
That or not.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
Six one seven, two five four ten already six one seven?
Is the president incapable of taking a victory lap? I
don't understand it. Uh? It is. It is certainly dumb politically, UH,
And I think it's counterproductive. I'd love to get your take.
We're coming back on Night Side. Maybe you can figure
(10:19):
it out, I shore Kan.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
All right, So I want to continue here just for
a moment, and then we'll go to phone calls. Be fact,
I'm going to phone. Let me go to phone calls
right now. You know the point I'm making up. I'll
have to re emphasize it here. But you know, Harvard
has made concessions. This this I just don't get it.
Let me go to Sam and Medfid see what Sam thinks.
(10:48):
Hey Sam, welcome to Nightside. How are you tonight, sir?
Speaker 5 (10:52):
So I'm doing great, So hellout you and thanks for
taking my call.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
You're very welcome. Thanks for thanks for joining us. My
You know, my belief is that Harvard has actually made concessions,
has has said this is what we've done. Why would
the president not turn around and declare victory and say
him now I'm moving on to other things. What's wrong
with that strategy?
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Ah? I don't know, something stokes his ego or something.
I mean, why kick the dead house? They already made concessions.
You got to make the lab focus on Ukraine. Those
rare minerals deal who work with Putin and focus the
energy is where you get more buck for the bangrad
than beating all the good institutions in your own country. Right,
it does not you got what you wanted, they changed
(11:40):
and just move on.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, I mean, even if even if let us say,
a year from now, he felt that they did not
follow through, he can always go back and resurrect his
war against Harvard. But with he could quote from this
letter and say Harvard has acknowledged they've changed. They can
use He could use Harvard's words against them, And if
(12:05):
a year from now things that aren't going as well
as he wants them to go, he could say, look,
I was I was a gentleman, I walked away. I acknowledge,
but they have not followed through, and now we're really
going after I don't it's mystifying to me. I guess,
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (12:22):
Maybe maybe Harvard in the past never called him for
some graduation ceremonies or something, so that must have stalked
to the ego. But he should let it go. He
should take the high road.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
I guess. Yeah, Uh, are you a Trump supporter or no?
Speaker 5 (12:39):
You know, I think I'm told in the past, then
I'm a big believer for whosoever is doing the right
thing for the country.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
I believe more in Yeah.
Speaker 5 (12:48):
I believe more in actions than words. Everything else is
words are cheap.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
Oh, I'm with you on that. But my question, I
guess what my question is.
Speaker 5 (12:57):
I'm independent dependent.
Speaker 2 (12:59):
Okay, So what I'm saying is, you're not somebody. There
are a lot of people who love him and he
can do no wrong, and then there are people who
don't like him and he can do no right. But
if you're an independent.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
Good He's done good things about immigration. I'll have to
give him that. But I mean everybody has good in that.
Some things are good, but some things are not good invited.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
I think he's making a mistake. I think he's spending
political capital here that he doesn't have to spend on
a fight that he could easily claim. Hey, I'm right,
they can. They made concessions, Sam, Thank you much. I
appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (13:35):
Thank you very much, thank you. Thanks, thanks for taking
me pleasure talking to all.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
Right, let me go to Ed in Worcester. See what
he thinks. I think Ed is kind of favorably inclined
generally to Trump. I hope I haven't mischaracterized you, Ed.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
No, no, no, I'm I'm completely in favor of this.
I don't think it's an unwise political move at all,
not not.
Speaker 4 (13:58):
For his base.
Speaker 3 (13:59):
I think his base is very enthusiastic about it.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
So's his basis thirty eight right, you got to get
more than your base in twenty twenty six to hold
the House or increase your your membership in the House.
You heard what I read in the letter that was
written that was written to him on August fourteenth. Why
(14:23):
would he not take those words and say, hey, I've won.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Well, two things, don't. I don't think they're sincere. I
don't believe that they're sincere about making any meaningful concessions.
And secondly, you know, he's he's only got a short
time in office, and he's got a even shorter time
till the midterm elections. If he wants to do important things,
he has to frontload them. And I think he knows
(14:48):
that and that's why he's giving everything, especially this such
a priority. I mean, I just don't. I don't take
these people at their word, don't. I don't trust them
anymore than I would trust Latimer. There's another that's something
I disagree with Trump on. I wish you wouldn't trust
that guy.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Well, look, uh what, Look, he's got so much on
his plate head, you know, nothing.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
More important than this, nothing more important than this?
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Oh really okay? I would argue, I would argue that
dealing with Iran and the whole Middle East, a boiling
pot of whatever, is pretty important. I would argue that
the tariff, the fights on the fight on tariffs, as
it might impact for better or worse than national economy.
(15:40):
I think he's he's done well on the border, and
I think that from his perspective, he pretty much can say, hey,
I closed, I closed the border as I promised I would.
But I don't know that getting Harvard to you know,
he can't micromanage Harvard. He can't micromanage any of these places.
Do you think that the Supreme Court as currently constituted
(16:05):
is going to give him the right to tell Harvard
whether or not they can or any of any college
in America whether or not they can admit foreign students.
Do you think the Court as currently composed will support
him on that.
Speaker 3 (16:20):
I think they'll support him that he can cut off
their funding, and I certainly think the Republican majorities in
Congress want to cut off their funding, but they can
do what they want, but they can't do what they
want with taxpayer money and with a tax exemption. And
I think he should go beyond that.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
I think, how do you how do you remove the
tax exem status of any company that has the tax
exempt status? You know as well as I do. You're
a lawyer. The concept of the burden of proof is
upon him in this situation, or upon the administration to
remove tax exem status. If they're going to focus on
Harvard and Columbia, it would be an easier task if
(16:57):
they wanted to get rid of tach, get rid of
five or once three across the board, but that would
have to be done by Congress.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
And that's I think they should.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I think I said that before on your show. I
think they should.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Yeah, well, so, okay, you think that's a political winner
in twenty twenty eight.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
If you don't win the culture or nothing else matters. Well,
if you don't win the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Okay, I hear you. I guess you and I are
going to see it fundamentally differently. I look at this
letter and I think to myself, there is an intermediate
victory that he could declare. He could say these are
the words that the Harvard lawyers have written to my administration.
I accept the words as written. I take them at
(17:41):
their word. I assume they will follow through on their words.
We will check back in a year to see if
they're followed through.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
Okay, right, yours? I want to I want to be
the first. I want to be the first one to
announce on me or something I've been saying for I
don't think we're moving their tax exact is enough. I
would go into these colleges and universities. I would nationalize them.
I would confiscate all their property.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
That's that's good.
Speaker 3 (18:08):
That's got you know?
Speaker 2 (18:09):
Oh yeah, uh, that you know. I guess I'm flabbergasted
by that. By what right? By what right? Now? We
are now we are talking about state fascism for real.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Well, any any any government on earth has the right
to nationalize property if it gives compensation.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
Wait a second, Wait a second. You you got what
the government might have a right to do doesn't mean
it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 3 (18:42):
Ed you're serious, I said earlier, if you don't win
the culture, nothing else matters.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Well, I don't think you win the culture by overreacting,
and and and and and putting arm beans on people
and putting them in funny little uniforms. I don't think
that America or maybe five percent of the country would
support that, but but that would be the that would
be the extent of it. We have reached a fundamental disagreement,
my friend. As always, thank you for your call. Thank
(19:10):
you very much. Okay, I said that I thought that
Ed was supporting I. And by the way, Ed is
very intelligent, lawyer out of Worcester, very intelligent. But I
think that is way over at the top, way over
the top. Back on Night's Side, right after the news.
If that doesn't light it up, I don't know what will.
We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
It's Nightside, Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
Well. I think Ed was an interesting caller. I think
le we go to Donna in Northborough. Hey, Donna, welcome
next on Nightside.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
Hey Dan, happy to be here. How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (19:51):
I'm doing just great? Where where do you stand on
this great debate? I I just sometimes you gotta you gotta,
you know, when you go to Las Vegas and you've won,
sometimes you take the money and you walk away.
Speaker 6 (20:05):
Well sometimes, but I believe it's the country at stake
at this point, so you might need to let that
ride a little bit. I have been fascinated by what
President Trump is doing. I'm an independent I go where
I think the country will do best. Okay, and and
(20:26):
I thought Trump was the right choice. I think most
people did with So yeah, that's more than more than fifty.
So I'm thinking the wax on wax off. You know,
like in the beginning of the Karate Kid, nobody knew
(20:47):
why he was doing wax on wax off, but when
it came, when it counted, then you found out. So
I'm seeing that that Trump is uh revealing himself in layers.
Speaker 2 (21:02):
Okay, I don't get the karate kid metaphor, but that's
our analogy. But I'm not a karate kid guy. But
that's well.
Speaker 6 (21:13):
I think that we don't know what he's doing. I
don't think anybody but him and the people that he
has doing this are aware of, you know, where where
the bar is and if he's.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
Trying to test, if he's trying if what your argument
is that he's trying to test the powers of the presidency.
Speaker 6 (21:33):
No, no, no, what my argument is is that I
don't know, and you don't know where he's going with this,
Where he's going with this, well, right.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
But I'm saying right, but but I think that ultimately
we're talking about the powers of the presidency. I mean,
I don't think the president has the power to prevent
universities from uh enrolling students foreign students. I don't see.
I don't see where that power exists anywhere.
Speaker 6 (22:07):
In my opinion, I don't think that's his goal. I
don't think that's his goal at all. I think that
he's using that as a chip to gain what he
ultimately wants, which is fairness. You know, you're looking at
fairness and sports, and women's sports in particular. You're looking
at fairness with regard to race, cultures, ethnicity, sexuality. All
(22:32):
of that fairness is in question, you know, in different areas.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
And guess what in many of those areas, I might
agree with where I think he's going. But I don't
think it's fair to try to tell Harvard, as a
university that's been around since sixteen thirty six and a
fairly successful, one private university, that they can or cannot
(22:59):
accept students who happen to be from outside the United States.
I think that is way beyond any power that the
founders imagine. I agree the president would have, so I
just and I just.
Speaker 6 (23:15):
I agree with you, But I honestly don't think that's
where he's trying to go. I think he's just using
that as a bargaining chip. Look at the letter from her,
Look at he's gotten somewhere. And I agree with you.
In some cases, maybe that would be, you know, you
take all the chips off the table because you're winning.
But I don't know where he's going with it.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Well, I just I guess I don't know where I want. Yeah,
I don't know where he's going either, But I will
tell you this. I think I think the strategy that
he's currently employee employing is going to be dangerous to
his u to his presidency, and dangerous to him electing
more Republicans in twenty twenty six. That's the point I
(23:57):
was trying to make that your're sometimes in politics. Politics
is the art of compromise, and as smart politician will say, Okay,
I'm not going to get everything I want, but I'm
going to get something, and I do have something in
this letter from her, And he could he could go
on and say, look, we're making progress admitted. You know,
he's not claiming her is admitting, and the other lawyer's admitting.
(24:20):
I think that's if he was smart and not a maglomaniac,
because he's beginning to me looking like a meglomaniac that
he somehow wants to run the admissions office at Harvard.
Speaker 5 (24:34):
Does huh?
Speaker 6 (24:35):
I don't think he does. I really don't think he does.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Well, I'll tell you, well, when you figure out where
he's going, I want you to call me back, because
I think you're going to figure it out before me.
Speaker 4 (24:49):
Together.
Speaker 2 (24:51):
Thanks, don appreciate you call.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
Have a good one, all right, Take care.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
No one knows Harvard University better than my caller, Harvey Silver.
Gleat Harvey, if you can bring some clarity to this situation.
I know you you were not a fan of Donald Trump,
but just from a strategic point of view, I don't
understand the strategy.
Speaker 4 (25:14):
I think I do, Dan, Okay, what is it? He
wants to subject gate the richest, the most powerful, the
oldest university in the nation because it refuses to heal
to his commands. Colombia folded like a cheap suit.
Speaker 2 (25:37):
Well, I think Columbia. I think Columbia had a lot
to be responsible for it. To be honest with you,
I think Columbia is a different situation than Harvard, to
be honest with you.
Speaker 4 (25:45):
Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
And I think that I think that they're they're what
they allowed to happen on their campus, the Jewish students
and what they allowed to happen on their campus. And
some of the comments that were made there was that
one professor from from Columbia who was quoted on camera.
He was saying that that October seventh exhilarated him.
Speaker 4 (26:08):
I mean, I agree with I agree with all of that, Okay,
but Harvard has decided to draw the line. And what Trump,
what's bothering Trump is not anti Semitism. I don't think
he gives a damn about yous about anti semitism.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Fair enough, Okay, I'll accept that for that. I'll accept
that for the that argument go ahead.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
What bothers him is that Harbor has stood up to him.
Alan Garber the provost, and Jehan Manning the provosts, and
Alan Garber the president have said no. And that is
what bugs him the most.
Speaker 2 (26:50):
Okay, you heard me. Read that last paragraph, and you're
more familiar with the Garber letter because you talked You
talked to Garber, and I don't yes that that last
that para in which they said, over the last fifteen months,
Harvard's done this, They've done this, They've done this, they
had there was a litany of things that they have done.
If you were Donald Trump's lawyer and you've defended people,
(27:11):
you know who you weren't necessarily fond of, let me
put it like that, as any good lawyer would what
advice would you give him? Would you tell him at
this point? Would you tell him what I'm what I
would say to him. Look, you have statements from Harvard
here which support that support your position. Take the victory,
say that you'll check back a year from now, but
(27:32):
walk away from it from now. Would you would you
not advise your client if it were if it were
Donald Trump to do that?
Speaker 4 (27:39):
Of course I would. But that isn't what Donald Trump wants.
Fair Enough, he doesn't care about any of these issues.
He cares about subjugation.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
He at at the end of the day, as his lawyer,
don't you have to say to him you're going to
lose on this. You you might you might win in
on uh some issue here or there. But on most
of these issues, you're going to lose. You're not going
to be able to take away their five or one
C three status.
Speaker 4 (28:12):
Dan, Yeah, what makes you think he's going to obey
a court order?
Speaker 2 (28:17):
I think it's I think it's called I think it's
called the Justice Department. I think it's called the US
Supreme Court. I think it's called, if necessary, the US Military.
I think that he would be insane if if if,
I mean absolutely certifiably insane, if we ever got to
the point that he was going to defy a court order,
(28:39):
which would be then backed.
Speaker 4 (28:41):
Nobody, nobody ever accused Donald Trump of being sane. Let
me point something out.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
I think he's more sane than people realize. To be
honest with.
Speaker 4 (28:50):
You, let me let me, let me let me point
something out. You talked about the law firm that represents Harvard.
Is that the firm of Wilma Hale Washington.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
No, no, no, no, no, no. Wilmahale does not. And
you know as well as I do, that will Mahale
made some concessions, et cetera. No, these these are two
individual lawyers, William Burke with un Emmanuel your car and Sullivan,
I'm unfamiliar with that firm. And then Robert Hurt, who
I'm very familiar with King and Spalding, and he was
the guy that did the depositions with that deposition with
(29:25):
President Biden in October twenty twenty three.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
I'm very samated with Quinn Emmanuel, a partner who recently retired.
Captain Sullibum was dean of the Harvard Law School for
many years.
Speaker 2 (29:38):
Yes, sure, her name's on the mastead YEP. Okay, so well,
I just look, I think that if you know, if
people really believe that, I find it impossible to think
that even if he has hired and is now employing
(29:59):
some bad people, that's he's smart enough to know. I
just think it's impossible to think that he would defy
a US Supreme Court order. That's all. That's all. I
think that.
Speaker 4 (30:13):
Nobody ever accused him of being smart. He's wiley.
Speaker 2 (30:18):
He's wiley. He's also been able to come back and
done something that no other president other than Grover Cleveland
had done to be able to come back. And I
never thought that he would be re elected after I
never thought he'd be elected in twenty sixteen, and I've
underestimated Donald Trump many times. Okay, I will admit to that,
(30:38):
and I will acknowledge that, but I mean, yeah, okay,
we'll see.
Speaker 4 (30:47):
It. Say have harbored cry uncle. He wants to win
this battle.
Speaker 2 (30:54):
I think that cried uncle already. And I think that
if he was smart, he would he would accept win
and then say I will continue to monitor them. And
he's got other things on his plate right now, which
in my opinion, how much more important taris the economy,
the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine whatever. Anyway, Harvey as always,
(31:19):
thank you for your wisdom, Thank you for your wisdom
and your and your perspective. It's it's well needed. Thank you.
On a break, Gotta get to a break. Coming right
back on Nightside.
Speaker 5 (31:31):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
I'm gonna go next to Matt and Franklin. Matt, you
were next to Nightside. Welcome.
Speaker 6 (31:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (31:42):
I'm a tough time trying to figure out what Trump's doing.
It seems like he's tearing the DOJ into his like
frivolous lawsuit department, and he's kind of like all over
the map on like what he is trying to accomplish.
In his second term, and uh, it's like he's not
gonna win. And my question for you is, like, could
(32:04):
some of not necessarily trauma because some of his cabin
people get sued civilly from Harvard after this all over.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
No. No, most people who are UH in official public
offices either immune from any sort of a civil lawsuit
or they are they're indentified. I mean, if there was
a a cabinet official who went out and and and
held up a bank tonight, could he be he or
(32:34):
she be prosecuted, of course. But if in the course
of their uh actions as as a public official, you know,
took an action that they they might lose that action
in court, but that they cannot They're not going to
be sued then in a civil fashion. No.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
Absolutely, like breaking the law with some of these things
they're doing.
Speaker 2 (33:01):
No, if you talk about breaking the law, Uh, that's
that's a criminal statute. Okay. But these are primarily policy questions.
Now Trump can say, well, Harvard hasn't gone far enough.
That's a policy question, okay, So he's fine there. Or
if someone if he directs someone in his in his
(33:21):
administration to file a lawsuit or to to file a
motion for this or for that. That's he's trying to
impose policies, so he would be that's not a problem.
But but politically there comes a point in time where
as you said, he's doing things that might appear to
be frivolous. Look, you've got tariffs, You've got Russia Ukraine,
(33:45):
you have a big, beautiful tax bill that is in
front of the Senate, which maybe is really a lynchpin
of his administration. You have all of these important battles,
not to mention the border, uh, as well as his
ability to send people out of the country who are
here for no good reason, are here to cause problems,
(34:09):
and in many cases to send people out of the
country who have been convicted of criminal behavior. Those are important.
Speaker 1 (34:16):
Yeah, I mean, I agree on that's up, but it
seems like it's all right, I'm gonna get rid of
the Department of Education, but while I'm doing that, I'm
gonna have a Department of Education, get rid of Harvard
and then oh, I'm going to get rid of the
I R S, but I want the I R S
at the same time to uh get rid of the
tax um status. And then while I'm doing this, he's.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
He's not going to get rid of the I R S.
And I also don't think that he can. I don't
think he can say to Harvard. You know, if Harvard,
for example, tomorrow said we have decided we are no
longer accepting students of a certain racial category uh to
to come to our school because we hate people who
are of this racial category, then that is when he
(34:59):
could pu vely probably withdraw the five A one seed
free status. But that's not what Harvad's doing. Harvard might
be admitting, in Donald Trump's opinion and in my opinion,
too many students from overseas. But but that's a decision.
That's Harved's decision, not my decision, not Donald Trump's decision,
not your decision. That's the that's the point I'm trying
(35:20):
to make.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Yeah, I just think he is going to have a
miserable time with the midterms, and it's gonna be like, well,
like you're going to just stick around.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
Truly, he'll be truly a lame dock. He's going to
be a lame duck president after the midterms because he
won't be able to run for a third term despite
his musings. No Supreme Court is going to say Oh, yeah,
we'll overturn. We'll allow you to run for a third term.
I mean, that's I've always looked at that as he's
trolling people. He's in their head, rant free. But to
(35:52):
pursue Harvard after Harvard has made what I would construe
with concessions. This is boilerplate language that he could use
to say, Look, Harvard did bend. I forced Harvard to bend.
It was a great victory for the Trump administration. And
now we're going to make sure that they continue with
these policies the promises that made. Let's move on. That
would be the smart thing to do, in my opinion,
(36:13):
but obviously I'm not in the majority at this point.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
Yeah, I just think it's gonna drag on for like
the whole year, and then well we're gonna get what
We're gonna get closer and closer to the mid terms
without accomplishing anything, and then he will pay.
Speaker 2 (36:26):
A price and the Republicans will pay a price. Thank you, Matt,
appreciate your call. Here comes the Ted. We're gonna stay
with it. The only line we have one line at
six months, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty, and
we have one line at six months, seven, nine, three, one,
ten thirty conversation has been a little longer than I
want them to be. We will pick up the pace
starting with Tom, Lou and Jim, and we have room
(36:47):
for you coming back on Nightside.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com