Higher Education Should Learn From Hillsdale

After years of festering antisemitism and utilizing policies that many Americans deemed unconstitutionally discriminatory, today, higher education is at a crossroads: Shape up or lose billions.

Higher education and its addiction to, and abuse of, federal largesse

The federal government is taking steps to condition federal funds on submitting to the administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination statutes. Its most recent target, Harvard University, says this is an attack on the institutional independence of higher education. 

What did they expect? This is just what happens when, for decades, you make federal funding the cornerstone of higher education’s research and educational initiatives. Those seeking to avoid the federal bully-pulpit should learn from schools like Hillsdale College, Grove City, and Christendom College in Virginia, all of whom refuse to take government funds and thus preserve their independence.

The Trump administration has been scrutinizing some of America’s most prestigious academic institutions. First, they canceled $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University and gave the school a list of demands to restore funding, including a ban on masks, follow-through on disciplinary proceedings for those who participated in the spring 2024 antisemitic riots, and a crackdown on antisemitism on campus. Columbia capitulated to the administration’s demands and received their funding back.

Harvard’s Hobson’s Choice

Now the administration has pulled Harvard University’s access to federal funding for numerous Title VI violations. The administration provided Harvard with a list of demands, including an order to adopt “merit-based” hiring and admissions policies, to reform programs with an egregious record of antisemitism, and to discontinue DEI programs. Harvard refused to capitulate to the administration’s demands, arguing that it exceeds their statutory power under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and claiming: “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” The administration responded by freezing $2.3 billion in federal funds.

Unfortunately for Harvard, the federal government likely can condition federal funding for grants and students based on what is taught, who is admitted, and who is hired. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, universities that accept federal funding have been subject to Title VI, which explicitly prohibits universities from discriminating against applicants for admission, current students, or those seeking employment based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. Universities that accept federal monies are also subject to Title IX (which bans sex-based discrimination), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Unfavorable Supreme Court precedent

The judiciary isn’t likely to side with Harvard here, as precedent is against them. In 1984, the Supreme Court held in Grove City College v. Bell that schools that accept federal funds are subject to Title IX’s regulations, even private universities. In fact, the Fifth Circuit relied on the Grove City decision to hold that universities that accept federal grants must comply with federal anti-discrimination regulations. 

Translation: The Trump administration is well within its rights to condition access to federal money on compliance with its interpretation of federal antidiscrimination law. 

Given that the Department of Education gives loans to 6.3 million students every year and $30 billion in federal grants for research to universities every year, the administration’s broad power over federal funding gives them an immeasurable power over institutions of higher education – making expansive federal control over hiring, firing, curriculum, and admissions logically inevitable. Indeed, anti-discrimination provisions are so potent that, after Students for Fair Admission ended affirmative action in 2023, universities quickly ended race-based admissions policies to continue receiving federal funds. Our universities have chosen to surrender their independence for access to federal funds.

A new model for higher education – Hillsdale College

Universities concerned about losing their independence should take a page from Hillsdale College. Hillsdale has not taken a dime from the government since 1975 because it recognized that an administration hostile to its values and curriculum could use federal anti-discrimination law to subvert academic freedom and limit its independence. One would think this has made Hillsdale unaffordable, undesirable, and academically lax. Yet this is not the case. Despite the national average for tuition being $43,505, Hillsdale has managed to keep its tuition below average at $31,780. Hillsdale is also clearly attractive to applicants, as it only has a 21% acceptance rate. Finally, it is known for its academic rigor; US News ranked it as #50 in national liberal arts colleges. 

Hillsdale itself has credited its success to its decision to retain independence by rejecting government funding. 

Surely elite universities like Harvard, which has a $53 billion endowment and tons of wealthy alumni, can stave off the loss of federal funding, like Hillsdale has, to maintain their independence. The Trump administration’s actions should wake universities up to a cold, sobering reality: If you want to run your school free from federal oversight, sooner or later, you have to say no to federal funds.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.