Will Trump Do a Bob Jones on Haahvaahd?

Until this week, it had been decades since anyone mentioned Bob Jones University. Thanks to Harvard’s fight with Donald Trump, the school has become more relevant than it has since 1983.

Over the last couple of days, the fight between Trump and Harvard has escalated rapidly. To continue qualifying for federal funds, the administration requires the school to adhere to its interpretation of civil rights laws. This arrangement has been the norm for decades, with the only difference being the Trump administration’s interpretations of these laws and policies. 

John Hinderaker has a list of the demands with his own commentary at Power Line. One demnd in particular is likely the hill on which Harvard’s willing to sacrifice its income stream from the federal trough:

* “Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring.” The administration wants Harvard to “audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse.” And “every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.”

That demand likely provoked Harvard to reject any attempt to cooperate more than the others, and fueled the claim to be protecting its “independence.” As I wrote yesterday, that’s an ironic argument from a school demanding access to Other People’s Money, especially sourced by the government from which Harvard claims independence. 

After Harvard refused to comply, Trump escalated matters again by declaring that the school’s tax exemption could get reversed if it refused to cooperate:

Harvard University has drawn a line in the sand against the Trump administration and its sweeping demands for cultural change. Now it is counting on its peer institutions for backup.

In Washington, Republicans say the nation’s wealthiest and oldest university has just made a serious error in judgment and is about to learn the cost of crossing Trump.

The collision between the president and America’s most iconic university had barely begun when it immediately escalated. Trump on Tuesday threatened to withdraw the university’s tax-exempt status, a move that would hit Harvard’s finances far beyond the $2.26 billion in federal cuts the Trump administration had announced Monday night after Harvard’s president said the school wouldn’t bow to a broad list of demands.

Trump posted the threat yesterday on Truth Social:

Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting “Sickness?” Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!

How serious is this threat? That brings us back to Bob Jones University, which for decades refused to change its policies forbidding inter-racial dating. Because BJU didn’t take federal funding, the federal government didn’t have any financial leverage — or so BJU thought. The IRS revoked its tax-exempt status to penalize BJU for its discriminatory conduct on the basis of race, arguing that an entity acting against public policy is not entitled to any exemption. 

The Supreme Court heard the case in 1982, and the following June upheld the IRS determination by an 8-1 decision. It rejected BJU’s First Amendment defense — which Harard might note in particular — and set a clear precedent:

(b) The IRS’s 1970 interpretation of § 501(c)(3) was correct. It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private educational entities. Whatever may be the rationale for such private schools’ policies, racial discrimination in education is contrary to public policy. Racially discriminatory educational institutions cannot be viewed as conferring a public benefit within the above “charitable” concept or within the congressional intent underlying § 501(c)(3). Pp. 461 U. S. 592-596.

(c) The IRS did not exceed its authority when it announced its interpretation of § 501(c)(3) in 1970 and 1971. Such interpretation is wholly consistent with what Congress, the Executive, and the courts had previously declared. And the actions of Congress since 1970 leave no doubt that the IRS reached the correct conclusion in exercising its authority. Pp. 461 U. S. 596-62.

(d) The Government’s fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners’ exercise of their religious beliefs. Petitioners’ asserted interests cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, and no less restrictive means are available to achieve the governmental interest. Pp. 461 U. S. 602-604.

(e) The IRS properly applied its policy to both petitioners. Goldsboro admits that it maintains racially discriminatory policies, and, contrary to Bob Jones University’s contention that it is not racially discriminatory, discrimination on the basis of racial affiliation and association is a form of racial discrimination. P. 461 U. S. 605.

Justice William Rehnquist offered a strong dissent, essentially accusing the court of judicial activism. The statute itself did not address how “public interest” is defined, especially not to the level of concordance with current policy that the court enforced in this decision. Rehnquist argued that Congress wrote the statute to describe the types of organizations eligible for the tax exemption and provided no enforcement for viewpoint conflicts before the IRS decided to punish BJU.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court set this precedent, and BJU didn’t get its exemption back for another 34 years — 17 years after BJU reversed the policy that prompted the action. The IRS used the Bob Jones precedent to go after conservative 501(c)(3) orgs during the Obama administration, either in delaying the processing of applications or outright denials using different criteria than those applied to orgs that supported Barack Obama’s policies. 

Well, the shoe is firmly on the other foot now, and to mix my metaphors, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Harvard wants to defy Title VI, VII, and IX while enforcing viewpoint discipline and use discrimination in its hiring and admissions policies via DEI, they are free to do so. However, if that’s their choice, then the federal government is under no obligation to fund them, and under no obligation to exempt them from federal taxes either. 

So far, we have not seen that step taken by the IRS or the Department of the Treasury. Scott Bessent may take that step soon, though, and Harvard might have a tougher time keeping its federal funding than its tax exemption. Again, this is a fight worth having, but I’d also add that it would be much cleaner if the federal government divorced itself from higher education entirely.

Our friend William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection offered Harvard some wise advice today in an interview with Newsmax. I doubt they will take it, but no one can say they didn’t know the options here.

My take: Harvard is not defending academic freedom, it’s trying to prevent academic freedom and to maintain a leftist and anti-Israel monoculture pic.twitter.com/jQwmEs60I6

— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) April 16, 2025