How to Wean Higher Education of Government Support

Respecting individual rights requires that government exits higher education completely—but in an orderly fashion.

The Trump administration withholding funds from and threatening to revoke tax exempt status of Harvard and other higher education institutions for miscellaneous real and perceived law and regulatory violations—and some of those institutions contesting the claims—has received a great deal of attention recently. Perplexity gave me a good overview of the current arguments for and against the administration’s actions.

For:

1. Leveraging Compliance with Federal Policy

Proponents argue that withholding federal funds is a legitimate tool to ensure universities comply with federal laws, such as civil rights protections, and to address campus issues like antisemitism or ideological bias^{2 5 7}. The Trump administration, for example, has used funding freezes as leverage to push for reforms in campus governance, admissions, and faculty hiring practices, as well as to demand action against antisemitism^{5 8}.

2. Addressing Perceived Political or Ideological Imbalance

Supporters claim that elite universities have become "left-wing hothouses" with limited diversity of opinion and that federal funding should not support institutions perceived as partisan or failing to uphold public interest^{5 8}. Withholding funds is seen as a way to send a strong message and force universities to address these concerns.

3. Fiscal Accountability

Critics of current funding practices argue that universities receive disproportionately large sums from the federal government, including substantial "overhead" charges not directly tied to research projects⁵. Some believe that cutting or reducing these funds would encourage universities to be more fiscally responsible and focus spending on core educational and research missions.

4. Public Interest and Taxpayer Oversight

Some advocate for withholding funds as a means to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used in the public interest and not to support institutions that allegedly fail to meet their obligations to students or society^{6 8}.

Against:

1. Harm to Scientific and Medical Research

Opponents contend that withholding federal funds, especially research grants, jeopardizes vital scientific and medical research, including studies on cancer, public health, and national defense^{1 2 6 7}. These actions could halt ongoing projects, lead to layoffs, and disrupt advancements that benefit the wider public.

2. Collateral Damage and Unintended Consequences

Critics warn that funding cuts punish entire institutions—including scientists and students uninvolved in the targeted behavior-leading to "collateral damage" that undermines American innovation and global competitiveness^{1 5 7}. The research ecosystem, built on decades of bipartisan support, could be destabilized.

3. Legal and Constitutional Concerns

There are significant legal questions about the executive branch’s authority to unilaterally withhold funds, especially without due process or congressional approval^{2 4 6 7}. Universities argue that such actions violate their independence, academic freedom, and potentially First Amendment rights^{6 7}.

4. Politicization of Research Funding

Many in higher education argue that using research funding as an "ideological weapon" sets a dangerous precedent, politicizing science and education in ways that could have lasting negative effects on the nation’s research infrastructure^{1 2 5}.

5. Economic Impact on Universities and Communities

Withholding federal funds can create budget crises for universities, leading to staff layoffs, program cuts, and reduced opportunities for students, particularly in fields heavily reliant on federal grants^{7 8}.

These arguments—both for and against—only have merit under the assumption that the government (federal, state, and local) should fund and regulate higher education. But what if that assumption is incorrect? The fundamental question we should ask ourselves if it’s morally Right for the government to force American taxpayers to fund higher education in the first place. If respect for and protection of individual rights—your rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness—is the moral standard, the answer is a resounding “No!” Under this standard, you—with the government as intermediary—may not force your neighbor to fund or regulate any aspect of higher education, nor may your neighbor force you. You may try to convince one another to voluntarily support a higher education cause—finance a STEM education program, create scholarships for student belonging to a disadvantaged group, fund university medical research, advocate for more (or less) women’s collegiate sports, promote less (or more) DEI, etc.—but force, government or otherwise, is out of the question.

Absent government funding of higher education, the argument for government regulation is severely curtailed; most regulations are simply strings that come with the funding. Without government funding and regulations, the above “For” and “Against” arguments become non-issues. With total separation of state and higher education, universities, colleges and other higher education institutions may freely establish founding charters and rules of governance that align with the stakeholders’ values, including their ideological and political leanings. You and I may disagree. We may argue for change if the cause is important to us. But as long as we are not forced to participate with our tax dollars, we're free to walk away secure in the knowledge that our individual rights are respected. In this sense it is no different from any other product or service that we decide to buy—or not to buy—in the marketplace. Or any other cause we choose to support.

How do we get to this shining city in higher education? Unfortunately, not the way the current administration is approaching it, for many of the reasons mentioned in the “Against” arguments above. You don’t single out individual institutions. You don’t arbitrarily issue executive orders overnight. You don’t push your ideology on them just because your predecessor pushed his. Such statist, authoritarian methods don’t belong in a civilized society.

No, the right approach is to legislate (quaint, I know) a long-term plan that allows today’s higher education institutions to transition away from the dependence on government agencies for their survival (FDA, USDA, NIH, federal and state Departments of Education, etc.) in an orderly fashion—with some assistance from the judiciary. Here's the embryo of a plan, by no means exhaustive, for how it could be done:

1. Remove all federal legislation, including but not limited to The Civil Rights Act Title IX, and regulations without delay. This will drastically reduce the federal bureaucracy currently overseeing higher education.

2. Honor current time-boxed federal research and other grants. For example, if a research project has federal funding approved for five years, it gets to keep it.

3. Freeze all other federal funding at last year’s level and cut it by 1/10 for the next 10 years. This will give higher education institutions the necessary time to prioritize their educational and research programs, find alternative sources of funding, and shut down programs not valued by the marketplace.

4. Let the states serve as laboratories for how to get state and local governments out of higher education. Some states will move faster than others, with those setting the pace putting pressure on the laggards.

5. Let the U.S. Attorney General file lawsuits against states and local authorities for individual rights violations in higher education. Federal legislative and regulatory repeal and defunding is a good start on the path to respecting individual rights, but until the states have fully embraced the concept the shining city remains a mirage.

Now you say, there is no way this is going to happen. Especially as Congress appears to have abdicated its legislative responsibilities. True, it won’t happen anytime soon. However, articulating the vision to the American public is the first step to creating the moral groundswell that eventually will make our elected representatives take notice. Once they realize their political survival depends on supporting the cause for respecting individual rights in higher education, implementation will happen in short order, and the mirage of the shining city turn to reality.