🔍 The Launch of Dual Federal Investigations into Harvard

The Trump administration has intensified its scrutiny of Harvard University with two new investigations announced by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) on March 23, 2026. These probes target longstanding concerns over the university's undergraduate admissions processes and its response to antisemitic harassment on campus. This move comes amid escalating tensions between the federal government and elite institutions, highlighting broader debates on equity, civil rights, and federal funding in higher education.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized that "no one – not even Harvard – is above the law," underscoring the administration's commitment to enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs.

Scrutiny of Admissions Policies Post-Supreme Court Ruling

The first investigation examines whether Harvard continues to employ illegal race-based preferences in its admissions, defying the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. That landmark ruling declared race-conscious admissions unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Despite this, the OCR initiated a review in May 2025 after complaints and has accused Harvard of stonewalling data requests, including a denial of access letter issued in September 2025.

Harvard now has 20 days from the announcement to submit comprehensive admissions records or face enforcement, potentially including referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Recent demographic shifts show Asian American enrollment rising to 41% in the Class of 2029 from 37% the prior year, but critics argue legacy preferences—favoring children of alumni—persist, potentially disadvantaging high-achieving applicants from underrepresented groups.

Addressing Antisemitic Harassment Under Title VI

The second probe focuses on allegations of ongoing antisemitic harassment and Harvard's failure to protect Jewish students. This builds on a DOJ lawsuit filed on March 20, 2026, accusing the university of "deliberate indifference" following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks, which sparked widespread campus protests. The suit cites assaults, intimidation, and exclusion of Jewish and pro-Israel students from campus spaces, seeking to recover billions in federal grants—over $2.6 billion from Health and Human Services alone.

Harvard's Presidential Task Force on Antisemitism reported incidents where Jewish students faced hostility, though the university earned a "C" on the Anti-Defamation League's 2026 Campus Antisemitism Report Card, with strengths in administrative actions but weaknesses in campus climate. For full details, see the DOJ lawsuit announcement.

Harvard's Stance: Retaliation or Legitimate Oversight?

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton described the probes as "retaliatory," arguing they stem from the university's refusal to compromise its independence. The institution insists it complies with legal obligations, has produced over 2,000 pages of admissions data in a prior February 2026 DOJ suit, and remains committed to combating antisemitism through internal reforms like updated alumni interviewer guidelines that prohibit considering race or religion.

Under President Alan Garber, Harvard has implemented task force recommendations, though critics like Rep. Elise Stefanik question their efficacy, noting a drop in Jewish enrollment to pre-WWII lows.

Photo by Haberdoedas on Unsplash

Harvard Alum Shabbos Kestenbaum Voices Strong Support

Alexander "Shabbos" Kestenbaum, a Harvard graduate who sued the university in 2024 over antisemitism inaction—settling confidentially in May 2025—praised the probes as "promises made, promises kept." In a recent Fox News interview, he criticized Harvard for resisting federal oversight more vigorously than it fought campus antisemitism or admissions discrimination against Asians, whites, and Christians.

"Harvard is fighting the Trump administration far greater and with more alacrity than they ever fought against antisemitism," Kestenbaum stated, urging complete defunding of the university. He noted current students express private gratitude but fear reprisal. Read his full comments in the Fox News article.

Timeline of Escalating Conflicts

The saga traces back to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, congressional hearings where former President Claudine Gay equivocated on genocide calls ("depending on context"), leading to her January 2024 resignation. Post-October 7 protests amplified scrutiny, with OCR reviews starting May 2025, DOJ suits in February and March 2026, and these probes. Key milestones include a 2025 funding freeze challenge and foreign funding probes.

• June 2023: SFFA v. Harvard SCOTUS decision bans race-based AA.
• Oct 2023: Hamas attacks trigger campus unrest.
• Dec 2023: Gay hearing.
• May 2025: OCR admissions review; Kestenbaum settlement.
• Mar 2026: DOJ antisemitism suit and DOE probes.

Statistics Highlighting the Stakes

Antisemitism reports surged post-2023, with Harvard's task force documenting exclusion and harassment. Jewish enrollment fell sharply, impacting diversity. Admissions data reveals legacy admits (10-15% historically) boost white/wealthy applicants, while Asian rates penalized pre-SFFA. Post-ruling, changes are incremental, prompting federal intervention.

Implications for U.S. Higher Education

These probes signal heightened federal oversight of elite universities, potentially affecting funding ($9B+ at stake for Harvard) and policies nationwide. Institutions reliant on grants face pressure to audit admissions for legacy/holistic biases and bolster anti-harassment measures. Positive shifts include rising Asian enrollment, but challenges persist in balancing meritocracy and diversity.

Explore related reforms via the Harvard Task Force site.

Photo by Margaret Giatras on Unsplash

Potential Outcomes and University Reforms

Non-compliance could lead to fund cuts, lawsuits, or leadership changes. Harvard's updates—like race-neutral interviewer protocols—may suffice if data proves compliance, but Kestenbaum and allies demand deeper accountability. Other Ivies face similar scrutiny, pushing sector-wide equity audits.

Stakeholder Views and Future Directions

Administrators decry politicization, students report mixed climates, alumni like Kestenbaum champion accountability. Experts foresee policy standardization, with actionable steps like anonymous reporting and merit-based admissions gaining traction. As probes unfold, higher education must navigate civil rights enforcement amid cultural divides.