Surgical strike: Harvard’s tough choice

A Life-Saving Decision

The call came on a Tuesday afternoon. My friend Barry—once an unstoppable entrepreneur—had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. The prognosis was brutal: two months to live, at most.

Barry did what many of us would do. He sold his businesses, put his affairs in order, and committed to spending his remaining days with his family. But he also took a more radical step: agreeing to a series of aggressive medical interventions that most would consider unthinkable.

His surgeons removed an entire lung. They excised a substantial portion of his liver. Additional procedures followed, each one more invasive than the last. The doctors weren’t just treating his cancer; they were amputating the parts of him the cancer had claimed.

Six months later, Barry should be dead according to medical projections. Instead, he’s alive—diminished in some ways, certainly, but remarkably vibrant considering what he’s endured. For a healthy person, removing a lung would be catastrophic. For Barry, it was the sacrifice that saved his life.

Harvard at a Crossroads

Harvard University now faces a similar reckoning.

For centuries, Harvard has stood as a beacon of academic excellence. Its research has revolutionized medicine, technology, and countless other fields. Its graduates lead nations, cure diseases, and push the boundaries of human knowledge. Yet today, this venerable institution finds itself at a crossroads, as federal funding hangs in the balance over its perceived failure to address antisemitism on campus.

The gravity of the situation was made clear on March 31st, when Harvard President Alan Garber issued a letter to the community revealing that the federal government’s task force to combat antisemitism had threatened nearly $9 billion in research funding. “If this funding is stopped,” Garber warned, “it will halt life-saving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.” In his plea, Garber acknowledged the problem of antisemitism on campus—even noting that he had “experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president”—and outlined various measures Harvard has taken to address it.

The Spreading Malignancy

But Garber’s letter, while earnest in its concern, exemplifies the half-measures that have characterized Harvard’s response thus far. He speaks of “strengthened rules,” “enhanced training,” and programs to “promote civil dialogue,” yet these incremental steps fail to address the root of the problem.

The problem isn’t Harvard as a whole—it’s the malignancy that has spread through specific departments, particularly in the arts and sciences. These programs have become increasingly entangled with foreign governments and organizations that harbor extremist ideologies. Foreign funding from nations with questionable human rights records, particularly Qatar, has poured into American universities with minimal transparency. What began as academic freedom has mutated into something more sinister: departments that provide intellectual cover for terrorist sympathizers while stifling opposing viewpoints.

Campus Organizations and Their Connections

Most alarming are the emerging connections between campus organizations and terrorist groups. In an unfolding lawsuit, organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Columbia University have been revealed to have direct connections to terrorist organizations—so much so that Hamas captors reportedly boasted to their hostages about their contacts at the university. These aren’t mere sympathizers; they represent direct pipelines between campus activism and organizations committed to violence.

The watershed moment came during Congressional testimony, when the presidents of Harvard, UPenn, and Columbia hedged and equivocated when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jewish people violated university conduct policies. Their tortured responses revealed not merely a communication failure, but a symptom of how deeply compromised these institutions have become.

What’s at Stake

In his letter, Garber rightly notes that “Much is at stake here,” pointing to “pathbreaking research that has made countless people healthier and safer.” He’s correct—Harvard’s medical school continues to save countless lives. Its business school produces leaders who create jobs and prosperity. Its law school shapes the very fabric of our justice system. These vital organs of the university must not be sacrificed because of the university’s reluctance to excise the cancer growing within its arts and sciences divisions.

But Garber’s assertion that “We still have much work to do” understates the crisis. The patient is already dying. Without intervention, Harvard, as well as other great academic institutions will continue their transformation from centers of learning to incubators of extremism.

When Garber writes, “We resolve to take the measures that will move Harvard and its vital mission forward while protecting our community and its academic freedom,” he fails to acknowledge that the concept of academic freedom has been weaponized within certain departments to silence dissenting voices, particularly those supporting Israel’s right to exist.

The Necessary Intervention

Like my friend Barry, Harvard must consider a drastic intervention to save the whole. This means severing ties with the departments and programs that have become too deeply compromised to reform. It means acknowledging that some parts of the university have strayed so far from their academic mission that they now endanger the entire institution’s future.

Is radical intervention possible? Not only possible but necessary. Columbia University has already taken initial steps, suspending students and rescinding degrees from those who violated university policies. But more decisive action is required:

1. First, universities must ban organizations with documented terrorist ties like SJP, which have repeatedly crossed the line from protected speech to harassment and intimidation.
2. Second, a zero-tolerance policy for demonstrations that violate other students’ rights must be implemented. The right to free expression ends where intimidation begins.
3. Third, courses and departments that have abandoned scholarly rigor for ideological activism must be restructured or, if necessary, closed—just as the federal Department of Education faces restructuring.

Addressing Criticisms

Critics will argue that such action would destroy Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom. But what freedom exists in departments which have become hotbeds of anti-American and antisemitic indoctrination, programs that have abandoned scholarly rigor in favor of ideological purity tests?

Just as the radiologist who diagnosed my friend’s cancer saved his life, the federal government’s shining a light onto this cancer and forcing action should be viewed not as persecution but as a necessary intervention. Sometimes, it takes an external shock to force difficult decisions that internal governance has been unwilling to make.

Conclusion: Finding the Courage to Act

When Garber writes, “As an institution and as a community, we acknowledge our shortcomings, pursue needed change, and build stronger bonds that enable all to thrive,” he adopts the language of gradual reform. But cancer doesn’t respond to gradual reform. It requires decisive intervention.

Barry lives today because he had the courage to sacrifice parts of himself to save the whole. Harvard must find similar courage. The world needs Harvard’s medical breakthroughs and scholarly contributions. What it doesn’t need are academic departments that provide intellectual cover for extremism while silencing opposing viewpoints.

Like my friend’s surgeons, Harvard’s leadership must be willing to make cuts that would be unthinkable in healthier times. Taking bold action to cut the cancer will preserve everything the institution has built over centuries and at the same time, take a big step to secure the integrity of Western civilization.