Trump Management Refers Harvard to Justice Department Over Alleged Antisemitic Discrimination

BREAKING: The U.S. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has referred Harvard University to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for alleged antisemitic discrimination. This action stems from the OCR’s findings that the university failed to address such issues, particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian protests.

The Trump administration has been vocal in its stance against pro-Palestinian demonstrations on university campuses, linking them to permitted antisemitism. this move against Harvard follows threats by former President Trump to withhold federal funding from universities that he claims allow antisemitism during these protests. Critics, including some Jewish groups, argue that the administration conflates criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories with antisemitism, and that advocating for Palestinian rights is wrongly equated with supporting extremism.

Campus protesters have been demanding an end to U.S. support for Israel and for universities to divest from companies involved in weapons manufacturing and those perceived as supporting the occupation of Palestinian territories.

Harvard has not yet officially commented on the OCR’s letter. However, the university has previously stated its commitment to combating discrimination. Internal reports released in April by Harvard’s own antisemitism and Islamophobia task forces acknowledged the fear and bigotry experienced by Jewish, Muslim, and arab students on campus. Notably, the trump administration has not announced similar investigations into Islamophobia.

This development comes after Columbia University agreed last week to pay over $220 million to resolve federal probes. reports suggest Harvard might be considering a settlement of up to $500 million to resolve its dispute with the government.

Evergreen Insight: The tension between free speech, academic freedom, and the fight against discrimination remains a complex and ongoing challenge for academic institutions. As geopolitical conflicts and social justice movements intersect on campuses, universities are increasingly navigating the delicate balance of fostering open dialog while ensuring a safe and inclusive environment for all students, faculty, and staff. The definition and manifestation of discrimination, particularly in response to international conflicts, will likely continue to be a subject of intense debate and scrutiny.

What specific aspects of Harvard’s “holistic review” process are likely to be examined by the DOJ to determine if it unfairly disadvantages Asian American applicants?

Harvard Faces Justice Department Civil Rights Investigation Over Admissions Practices

The DOJ Investigation: A Deep Dive

On July 31, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a civil rights investigation into Harvard University’s admissions practices. This probe centers on allegations of discriminatory admissions policies, specifically concerning Asian American applicants. The investigation falls under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance – a category Harvard undoubtedly falls into.

This isn’t a new battle for Harvard. The university has faced similar accusations for years, most notably in the landmark case Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard.While the Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions in June 2023, the DOJ investigation suggests concerns remain about potential ongoing discriminatory practices. the DOJ will examine whether Harvard’s admissions policies perpetuate discriminatory outcomes, even without explicitly considering race.

Key Areas of Scrutiny

The DOJ’s investigation will likely focus on several key areas within Harvard’s admissions process:

Holistic Review: Harvard, like many elite institutions, employs a “holistic review” process. This means admissions committees consider a wide range of factors beyond academic metrics – extracurricular activities,leadership potential,personal essays,and demonstrated character.The DOJ will assess whether this holistic review is applied fairly across all racial groups, or if its used to subtly disadvantage Asian American applicants.

Personal Ratings: Harvard uses subjective “personal ratings” to assess applicants’ qualities like likability, maturity, and motivation.Concerns have been raised that these ratings are prone to bias and can disproportionately impact Asian American applicants, who may be perceived differently based on stereotypes.

Legacy Admissions: The practice of giving preferential treatment to the children of alumni (legacy admissions) is also under scrutiny. Critics argue that legacy admissions disproportionately benefit white applicants and exacerbate existing inequalities. the DOJ will likely investigate whether Harvard’s legacy admissions policies contribute to a lack of diversity.

Recruitment Practices: The DOJ will examine Harvard’s recruitment strategies to determine if they actively seek out and attract a diverse pool of applicants. This includes evaluating outreach efforts to underrepresented communities and partnerships with high schools serving diverse student populations.

The SFFA v. Harvard Precedent & Its Aftermath

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard fundamentally altered the landscape of college admissions. The Court found that Harvard’s affirmative action policies violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Ruling’s Impact: The ruling effectively prohibited colleges and universities from using race as a determining factor in admissions decisions.

Harvard’s Response: Harvard stated it would comply with the ruling and revise its admissions policies accordingly. However, the DOJ investigation suggests the government believes further examination is warranted.

Continued Debate: The debate over fairness in college admissions continues, with many arguing that simply removing race as a factor doesn’t address systemic inequalities that disadvantage underrepresented groups.

Increased Scrutiny: Other elite institutions with similar admissions practices can expect increased scrutiny from the DOJ and civil rights groups.

Policy Changes: Colleges and universities may need to proactively revise their admissions policies to ensure compliance with Title VI and avoid potential legal challenges.

Focus on Socioeconomic Diversity: The end of affirmative action may lead to a greater emphasis on socioeconomic diversity as a means of achieving a more representative student body.

The Future of Holistic Review: The investigation will likely shape the future of holistic review in college admissions, forcing institutions to demonstrate how they can assess applicants’ qualities fairly and without relying on racial stereotypes.

U.S. Department of Justice: https://www.justice.gov/

Harvard University Admissions: https://hms.harvard.edu/

Students for Fair Admissions: https://sfafairadmissions.org/ (Note: This is the organization that brought the case against Harvard)

* Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-vi