A new Epoch Times poll explores readers’ views on the standoff between Harvard University and the Trump administration after the institution declined to comply with a list of conditions for addressing campus anti-Semitism and ending diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.
In the wake of this legal and political showdown, The Epoch Times asked readers to weigh in on the controversy and broader issues of federal oversight in higher education.
Political Drift and DEI Doubts
Critics say DEI initiatives prioritize identity factors over qualifications, and many Epoch Times readers who provided write-in responses to the poll linked such policies to what they see as reverse discrimination.Supporters of DEI, by contrast, say such policies promote inclusivity, reduce discrimination, and ensure greater representation for historically marginalized groups.
In what may be the most striking result of the poll, 89 percent of respondents said they strongly agree—and another 4 percent somewhat agree—that elite U.S. universities have become too politicized, drifting from their core missions of education and research.
Just 6 percent strongly or somewhat disagreed with the premise that institutions such as Harvard have lost public trust through partisan advocacy and ideological alignment with progressive causes. An overwhelming consensus agreed with that belief.
A nearly identical share—89 percent strongly agreeing and another 3 percent agreeing to some extent—agreed that DEI programs undermine the principles of merit-based achievement. A mere 7 percent either strongly or somewhat disagreed.
Funding Freeze, Civil Rights, and the Case Against DEI
Eighty-eight percent of respondents strongly agreed that the administration was right to freeze $2.2 billion in funding to Harvard over its refusal to dismantle DEI programs and reform policies related to anti-Semitism. Another 4 percent expressed some degree of support for the move, while just 7 percent either strongly or somewhat disagreed.Premium Picks
The core legal argument underpinning the administration’s funding freeze—that DEI programs violate civil rights by prioritizing identity over equality—was also strongly supported by 88 percent of respondents (and somewhat by another 4 percent), who agreed that DEI results in unequal treatment based on race or other identity factors.
Similarly, 92 percent of respondents said they either strongly or somewhat agreed that the Trump administration’s actions align with civil rights laws prohibiting race-based discrimination. Only 6 percent strongly disagreed, and another 1 percent somewhat disagreed. This view tracks closely with the Trump administration’s justification for its executive orders on DEI, which it argues are consistent with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Through multiple orders—including “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” and “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy”—the administration has sought to eliminate what it considers identity-based preferences in hiring, admissions, and instruction across federally funded institutions.
Meanwhile, write-in responses to The Epoch Times’ poll echoed this sentiment, with many respondents describing DEI policies as a violation of equal protection principles and calling for the restoration of what they saw as a level playing field in education.
Crisis of Confidence, Foreign Money, and Push for Campus Neutrality
Ninety-three percent of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with the premise that the conflict with Harvard reflects a deeper crisis in higher education surrounding values, purpose, and accountability. Just 5 percent felt otherwise.A significant number of respondents who provided write-in responses described Harvard as a symbol of systemic rot, citing rising tuition, bloated administrative salaries, and what they saw as censorship of conservative viewpoints.
Eighty-four percent of readers strongly agreed that the federal government should investigate foreign funding sources of U.S. universities to safeguard national security, with another seven percent expressing some degree of support for this view. Four percent strongly disagreed, and another 1 percent expressed some degree of opposition.
Write-in responses raised concerns about ideological influence by foreign governments, money laundering through academic grants, and the potential for espionage or political manipulation via university partnerships.
Eighty-three percent strongly agreed that universities must remain politically and ideologically neutral to receive federal funds, with another 7 percent expressing some degree of sympathy with this view. A combined 7 percent disagreed.
Readers who provided write-in responses cited perceived double standards in how faculty handle political topics, the prevalence of activist professors, and the suppression of dissenting speech as reasons for conditioning federal funding on neutrality.
Tax Status, Endowments, and Conditional Funding
The Trump administration’s suggestion that Harvard could lose its tax-exempt status drew strong support as well, with 90 percent of respondents agreeing strongly or somewhat that the university’s nonprofit classification should be reconsidered if it fails to comply with civil rights laws. Just 6 percent disagreed.As for whether wealthy private institutions with substantial endowments, such as Harvard, should rely on federal money at all, 79 percent strongly agreed that they should not, with another 9 percent somewhat agreeing. A combined 6 percent disagreed that schools with substantial endowments, such as Harvard’s $53 billion fund, should operate independently of federal assistance.
Many readers who provided write-in responses called such federal aid “corporate welfare” for the rich, and some suggested that endowment earnings be taxed or redirected to public universities and trade schools. Others proposed that elite schools be required to report more transparently on how their endowments are used.
When asked whether federal funding for universities should be contingent upon compliance with government policies and regulations, 85 percent agreed that it should—73 percent strongly and 12 percent somewhat. Just 7 percent disagreed, either strongly or somewhat. This view aligns with the Trump administration’s assertion that accepting public money comes with legal obligations and conditions.
Sanctions, Free Speech, and Academic Freedom
The most divided question in the survey was whether Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students should be revoked as a punitive measure for failing to address antisemitism.While a narrow majority—54 percent—strongly supported the idea, another 15 percent somewhat agreed. Eighteen percent were neutral and a combined 13 percent disagreed.
Write-in comments varied widely. Some called foreign student enrollment a “privilege, not a right,” while others warned that collective punishment for the actions of a few would set a dangerous precedent.
On the question whether federal conditions unfairly pressure private universities to alter curriculum, hiring, and admissions, just 13 percent strongly or somewhat agreed that they do. A full 55 percent strongly disagreed, while another 15 percent disagreed somewhat. Eleven percent were neutral.
As for Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump administration, which argues that the federal funding freeze is unconstitutional, only 10 percent agreed that the lawsuit is a necessary defense of academic freedom and constitutional rights. Seventy-four percent strongly disagreed, and another 12 percent somewhat disagreed.
Regarding the question of anti-Semitism on campus, 74 percent of respondents said they strongly disagreed (and 12 percent somewhat disagreed) with the statement that Harvard has adequately addressed such concerns. Only 6 percent expressed any form of agreement.
The Big Picture: Readers Reflect on Harvard, Funding, Reform
The final question in the poll invited respondents to choose all statements that aligned with their overall view of the conflict.Ninety percent of respondents said Harvard should stop pushing political agendas and return to merit-based education. Eighty-four percent said elite schools must be held accountable if they accept public benefits. Nearly half—46 percent—agreed that the government should respect academic independence but enforce civil rights laws fairly. Only 5 percent said the federal government should stay out of the issue entirely.
Thousands of open-ended comments underscored those preferences. Respondents overwhelmingly opposed public subsidies for elite institutions, calling Harvard’s funding “excessive,” “unconstitutional,” or “insulting” to working Americans. Many argued that Harvard’s immense endowment should make it fully self-sufficient. Others said that if the university refuses to comply with federal law, it should forfeit all access to taxpayer support.
Numerous respondents linked their support for the administration’s actions to broader concerns about campus free speech, ideological bias, civil rights compliance, and national security. Many criticized DEI as antithetical to equality under the law, and expressed alarm at what they saw as rising anti-Semitism disguised as political protest.
Still, a small minority of respondents defended Harvard’s position, warning that federal overreach could set a dangerous precedent for academic freedom. Several noted that enforcement must be consistent and not tailored to the political whims of whichever party is in power.
However, the overwhelming sentiment, reflected across nearly every question, was that the balance of power between elite universities and the federal government has tilted too far in favor of educational institutions that many people in the United States feel no longer reflect their values.
Overall, the Trump administration’s challenge to Harvard appears to have struck a deep chord among readers of The Epoch Times.
