Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts

Picture a Harvard University faculty lounge: a ring of professors clustered around Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s letter, one of them furrowing his brow and murmuring, “Wait, are we the baddies?” Such moments of self-awareness, alas, remain forever just beyond the reach of our academic elite. The very institutions that lecture us daily about our original sin — racism — have, with impressive irony, perfected the art of racial discrimination.

We are now at the far end of a 75-year arc that began with William F. Buckley Jr.’s “God and Man at Yale” and ends, aptly, with Harvard losing federal funds over the consequences of its own institutional neglect. The problems Buckley identified — contempt for Christianity and American ideals chief among them — have not only remained; they have metastasized.

The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate.

How did we get here?

On Thursday, Noem sent a letter to Harvard informing the school that it had lost its certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. This came after Harvard repeatedly ignored federal requests to disclose statistics related to anti-Semitic activity on campus. According to the letter, Harvard fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students, tolerates pro-Hamas sympathies, and sustains racially discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

Funds with strings attached

Harvard is now learning the lesson that Christian colleges grasped nearly half a century ago: Government money comes with government strings. But why did it take Harvard so long to recognize this? The answer is disarmingly simple — until now, those strings were always in harmony with Harvard’s ideological tune.

Federal dollars came bundled with leftist priorities, and thus the elite saw no need to question them. Christian colleges, in contrast, often declined the money to preserve their mission of faithfulness to Scripture.

What’s astonishing is that Harvard — the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere, chartered in 1650 — still behaves as though it needs government money. Its endowment, by the latest count, stands at more than $53 billion. Yet judging from the panic issuing from the president’s office, one might think bankruptcy was imminent. The reason? DEI is embedded so deeply into Harvard’s research infrastructure — even in the sciences — that stripping funding from DEI-tainted grants strikes at the university’s financial core.

In academic circles, panic now masquerades as prophecy. Professors speak as though the world is ending — though, given their long record of failed doomsday predictions about climate catastrophe, one might be forgiven for tuning them out. I remember, early in my career, being told by an administrator that Al Gore’s book was a “road map to the future.” It turned out to be more of a road map to irrelevance. Global warming’s great success was posting more failed predictions than Hal Lindsey.

RELATED: Harvard’s broke and begging — but it still won’t change its ways

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

But now the panic is personal. It’s not the planet they fear losing. It’s their world — their imagined utopia of managed speech, redefined morality, and subsidized ideology. That world is slipping through their fingers, and they have nothing left but their performances of alarm, such as reading an indigenous land acknowledgement, confessing their privilege, employee training about infinite genders, and giving a voice to the voiceless.

Yes, you are the baddies

This explains the despair among leftist academics. Even as the broader world shows signs of improvement, economically, culturally, and even morally, they howl louder. Why? Because the improvement is happening without them — or worse, despite them.

They believed they were changing the world by sermonizing about “whiteness” and “heteronormativity.” Instead, they became a punch line. They trained a generation of DEI advocates with the promise that there would always be government work, but those jobs disappeared faster than the edibles at a faculty party.

This is why Noem’s letter cuts so deeply. It documents, officially and unambiguously, the discriminatory policies of Harvard University. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate.

Yes, you are the baddies.

As we turn the page on this chapter of the failed American university, we should remember that Buckley, despite his critique, was ultimately optimistic. He knew that donors, parents, and students were no longer represented by Ivy League ideology, even as those schools embraced collectivism in his day. He believed they would reject the communitarian ideologies of these universities. And they have!

Now, as the last gasps of those failed philosophies echo through Harvard Yard, we too have reason to be hopeful. Parents, donors, and students are awakening, and they’re asking for something better. American ideals and Christianity are back on the menu at the schools that matter. Perhaps, at long last, we are remembering what once made Harvard great in the first place: Veritas.