RSS
It Is in Israel’s Interest to Uphold Egypt’s Role in Gaza
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi. Photo: Russian Presidential Press and Information Office.
JNS.org – As could have been predicted well in advance, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, in power in Egypt since the overthrow of Mohammed Mursi in July 2013—and elected in 2014 and again in 2018—met with no difficulty in his 2023 bid to secure a third term in office. He won 89.6% of the vote, against a number of nearly anonymous pseudo-candidates.
At least in theory, this should serve to re-establish the legitimacy of his rule, both at home and in the eyes of regional and international players. And yet, in early 2024 he faces a troubling combination of woes and challenges—above all on the economic front—that, over time, may amount to a threat to the social order and hence the regime’s stability.
The Egyptian economy has been plagued for more than a year by the consequences of a severe balance of payments problem, the collapse of the Egyptian pound—which has lost more than half its value against the U.S. dollar since the autumn of 2022—and a growing difficulty in abiding by the requirements of the International Monetary Fund, which has already led to a delay in the disbursement of the loan it was supposed to receive under the terms of a December 2022 agreement. As a result, Egypt’s credit rating was downgraded by Moody’s, and there are signs that investors, including some of Egypt’s wealthiest men, are shifting their activities to the more stable and comfortable environment of the Gulf monarchies.
One of the driving factors behind this crisis is the shortage of essential supplies and their rising prices—above all, due to the war in Ukraine, which until February 2022 was the main source of Egypt’s wheat imports. Over the years, the long-term damage inflicted upon Egyptian agriculture by the Aswan High Dam (which stops the fertile silt from being carried downstream by the river) has diminished crop yields: recently, as sugar cane crops dwindled, Egypt’s 155-year-old sugar factory in Minya was forced to close down.
Another factor is the steady increase in Egypt’s population, which has gone well past the one hundred million threshold in recent years—including, by some estimates, up to 9 million refugees, mainly from Sudan but also from war-torn Libya and Syria. The combined result is that Egypt has turned from a grain exporter into one of the world’s largest importers of wheat and cereals. This dependence is the main reason that the Egyptian national debt has doubled since 2016, despite reform efforts made by Sisi early on in his years in power, such as cutting fuel subsidies.
Recent events have dealt a further, double blow to Egypt’s sources of revenue. Before the war in Gaza broke out, the tourist industry—one of the pillars of the Egyptian economy and a vital source of foreign currency—was already showing signs of decline, enhanced by regional tensions and violence. The slow revival which followed the end of the COVID-19 crisis has once again been thrown into reverse. The second and more recent blow—although this was initially denied by the Suez Canal Authority—is the increasingly severe decline in income from passage through the canal due to the Yemen Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping. Many major shipping groups now prefer the much longer route around the Cape of Good Hope, rather than risk sailing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the mouth of the Red Sea.
The Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is another troubling issue casting a long shadow over Egypt’s economy—and in the eyes of some Egyptians, over the nation’s sheer survival (a somewhat exaggerated fear, since Ethiopia does not intend to stop the Blue Nile altogether). The repeated attempts to achieve a negotiated agreement over the rate at which the reservoir would be filled have failed, and after the collapse of meetings in Addis Ababa in December 2023, Egypt has reverted once again to thinly veiled threats warning that they will not tolerate a shortage of water for a nation of one hundred million people. In practice, however, Egypt’s military options are limited, not least because of the civil war currently raging in Sudan.
Egypt’s role in the Gaza war
At these difficult times, it is Egyptian involvement in Palestinian affairs—Sisi hosted Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas for a tripartite summit with King Abdullah of Jordan on Jan. 10, 2024—specifically in Gaza, that lends Egypt additional weight, regionally and internationally. This is due to the direct and effective levers it has on Hamas “on the ground” (or rather under it) as well as its straightforward dialog with the Israeli leadership. Both efforts are led by the head of the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate, Maj. Gen. Abbas Kamel. Not for the first time, Egypt finds itself in fierce and practically open competition with Qatar, which hosts the Hamas leadership in Doha. Still, it has been the Egyptian efforts that have borne fruit so far with the hostage-prisoner swaps of November 2023.
Notably, Egypt avoids any semblance of formal legitimacy for Hamas operatives. While some of the movement’s leaders do reside in Cairo, Egypt does not grant them official status. This reflects Cairo’s continued commitment to the P.A. and Abbas as the sole representatives of the Palestinian people—another reason being Hamas’s affiliation with the hated Muslim Brotherhood, Sisi’s sworn enemies. In its 1988 covenant, Hamas explicitly defined itself openly as a branch of the Ikhwan—the Muslim Brotherhood—even if later, in their 2017 policy document, wary of Sisi’s hostility, they muted this aspect. As a result, it’s not the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs but rather Kamel’s organization that manages direct contacts with Hamas’s command structure in Gaza.
At the same time, Egypt’s control of the southern approaches to the Gaza Strip, and the crucial function of the Rafah Crossing, give Cairo unique leverage over Hamas. (There was widespread anger in Egypt over the false impression that the Israeli defense team in The Hague had accused Egypt of being responsible for the failure to arrange for the entry of humanitarian supplies to Gaza). Technical arrangements make it possible for Abbas Kamel to have direct—and occasionally blunt—conversations with Hamas leaders, including Yahya Sinwar, as well as to maintain at all times open channels with Israel.
All these aspects place Egypt in the lead: hence it was Cairo that put forward to both sides a plan for resolving the hostage situation that in its final phase would also lead to an end to the fighting (with Hamas surviving in Gaza). Israel at least gave it a hearing at the cabinet level; Palestinian Islamic Jihad and then Hamas rejected it out of hand. But Egypt’s efforts continue.
Egypt on Israel’s agenda
It continues to be in Israel’s interest for Sisi’s Egypt, rather than Qatar, to maintain the lead on the hostage situation, as both military pressure and indirect channels of communication are being used to generate progress once again. This preference should be shared with the Biden administration, which seems to be unduly beholden to the Qataris and at times insufficiently attentive to Egypt’s needs—and Egypt’s importance.
As Israel’s leadership has made all too clear, it will not accept an outline that means, in practice, an end to the fighting while Hamas retains its hold on power over at least parts of the Gaza Strip. There are reasons to believe that the Egyptians themselves, regardless of their formal position, share the understanding (as do others in the Arab world) that the future of the region may well depend on Israel’s ability to dismantle Hamas and take down a notch the muqawama (“resistance”) camp—led by Iran—and the myth of heroic achievements that has been built around it.
At the same time, Israel should invest consistent efforts at the highest level to sustain open channels of communication with Egypt, focusing on six key aspects:
Allaying fears that Israel intends to deport or induce masses of Gazans to migrate into Sinai. Due to repeated statements by senior members of Israel’s governing coalition, Cairo views this as a real threat, and the concerns expressed by Egypt are not a mere anti-Israeli propaganda ploy. Given the almost mystical attachment of Egyptians to “every grain of sand” of the country’s soil, this is a sensitive issue; it also raises the specter of renewed terror activity in northern Sinai, after years of bloody warfare against the “Sinai Province” of ISIL. An unambiguous Israeli commitment in this respect—even if it entailed political difficulties at home—would reassure Egypt and could provide legitimacy for its continued engagement with Israel on matters of importance to both countries—arguing that “this is what enabled us to prevent the deportations.”
Proceeding carefully and in close coordination with the Egyptian military as regards the achievement of full operational control of the so-called “Philadelphi Corridor.” Such control will ultimately serve the interests of Egypt as well, but the obvious sensitivity and the need to avoid friction requires further work to secure mutual understanding. Israel after all gave its consent again and again in the last decade to the deployment of significant Egyptian forces in Sinai, well above the levels allowed under the Military Annex of the 1979 Peace Treaty. It is thus entitled to a similar Egyptian recognition of the IDF’s operational needs.
Bringing Egypt into the inner circle of consultations on “the Day After” in Gaza, after the Americans but ahead of others—once Israel and the Biden administration engage in an orderly discussion of options and modalities, looking toward the future. In any strategic design chosen, Egypt is bound to play a role given its geographical position and its vital interests—although neither Egypt nor Israel are planning to rule Gaza directly by military force, as Egypt did from 1948 to 1967 and Israel did briefly in 1956 and again from 1967 to 2005.
Offering Egypt a vision whereby northern Sinai, which saw—as mentioned above—intensive warfare between the regime and ISIL, can become a vital logistical and economic hinterland for the reconstruction effort in Gaza, with significant benefits for all.
Building upon this option, and with a wider regional view, Israel should promote the economic and energetic integration of Northern Sinai, and of Egypt more generally, with other partners in the Eastern Mediterranean, including an improved port at al-Arish. Greece and Cyprus could join Israel and Egypt to create a new transport architecture that could also assist Gaza in “the Day After.”
Amid all this, Israel and its friends should systematically work to improve Egypt’s standing in the American (and allied) public domain, in Congress, and with key administration figures—seeking to underline the importance of Egypt’s role and the need to find solutions for its present difficulties, while neutralizing as much as possible the counter-pressures by “progressives” who remain focused on the iniquities of Sisi’s regime.
Originally published by The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.
The post It Is in Israel’s Interest to Uphold Egypt’s Role in Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’
New York City Mayor Eric Adams attends an “October 7: One Year Later” commemoration to mark the anniversary of the Hamas-led attack in Israel at the Summer Stage in Central Park on October 7, 2024, in New York City. Photo: Ron Adar/ SOPA Images via Reuters Connect
New York City Mayor Eric Adams has accused mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani of spreading antisemitic views, citing Mamdani’s past remarks and anti-Israel activism as he starts his efforts to thwart the progressive insurgent.
Adams’s repudiation comes in the aftermath of a heated mayoral Democratic primary in which Mamdani, a 33‑year‑old democratic socialist, former rapper, and New York City Assembly member, achieved a stunning upset over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday. While Mamdani has denied being antisemitic, Adams argued that some of Mamdani’s rhetoric, including his defense of the phrase “globalize the intifada,” crosses the line into inflammatory territory and risks alienating Jewish New Yorkers.
In the Thursday interview with journalist Don Lemon, Adams slammed Mamdani for his “embracing of Hamas” in his public comments and rap lyrics. The mayor labeled Hamas a “murderous organization” that murders members of the LGBTQ+ community and uses “human beings as shields” when engaging in military conflict with Israel.
“You can’t embrace Hamas, and the mere fact that you embrace Hamas says a lot,” he said.
During his rap career, Mamdani released a song praising the “Holy Land Five,” a group of five men connected to the Hamas terrorist group. The men were accused of funneling millions in cash to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation — a charity organization that was shut down by the federal government in 2001 for having links to terrorist groups.
The mayor added that the city’s Jewish community should be “concerned” with Mamdani’s comments.
Eric Adams after campaign kickoff calls his Democratic rival, Zohran Mamdani, “an antisemite” who, he says, has embraced Hamas.
“Those who are Jewish should be concerned.” pic.twitter.com/COZSF9jHXE
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) June 26, 2025
Adams is battling to keep his political future alive amid mounting legal and political troubles. A federal bribery probe into foreign campaign donations cast a shadow over his administration until charges were unexpectedly dropped by a Trump-aligned Justice Department, sparking accusations of political favoritism. Since then, Adams has leaned into right-wing rhetoric on crime and immigration, forging relationships with allies of US President Donald Trump and refusing to rule out a party switch, moves that have alienated Democratic leaders and progressives alike and caused his approval ratings to spiral.
Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, had reportedly hoped for Mamdani to emerge victorious in the Democratic primary, believing that a face-off against the progressive firebrand would create an opportunity to revive his near-moribund reelection campaign by highlighting the democratic socialist’s far-left views.
Mamdani, a progressive representative in the New York State Assembly, has also sparked outrage after engaging in a series of provocative actions, such as appearing on the podcast of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas influencer Hasan Piker and vowing to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visits New York.
During an event hosted by the UJA-Federation of New York last month, Mamdani also declined to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.
“I believe that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all,” Mamdani said in a carefully worded response when asked, sidestepping the issue of Israel’s existence specifically as a “Jewish state” and seemingly suggesting Israeli citizens do not enjoy equal rights.
Then during a New York City Democratic mayoral debate, he once again refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, sparking immediate backlash among the other candidates.
In 2023, while speaking at a Democratic Socialists of America convention in New York, Mamdani encouraged the audience to applaud for Palestinian American community activist Khader El-Yateem, saying, “If you don’t clap for El-Yateem, you’re a Zionist.”
High-profile Democratic leaders in New York such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries have congratulated and complemented Mamdani but have not yet issued an explicit endorsement. Each lawmaker has expressed interest in meeting with Mamdani prior to making a decision on a formal endorsement, indicating discomfort within Democratic circles regarding the presumptive Democratic mayoral nominee’s meteoric rise over the past few months.
The post NYC Mayor Eric Adams Calls Zohran Mamdani an ‘Antisemite’ Who Has Embraced Hamas, Says Jews ‘Should Be Concerned’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
A new amicus brief filed in the lawsuit that Harvard University brought in April to stop the Trump administration’s confiscation of some $3 billion of its federal research grants and contracts offered a blistering response to previous briefs which maligned the institution’s decision to incorporate the world’s leading definition of antisemitism into its non-discrimination policies.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, legal briefs weighing in on Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. have been pouring in from across the country, with dozens of experts, think tanks, and student groups seeking to sway the court in what has become a historic confrontation between elite higher education and the federal government — as well as a showdown between Middle American populists and coastal elites.
Harvard’s case has rallied a team of defenders, including some who are responsible for drawing scrutiny of alleged antisemitism and far-left extremism on campus.
Earlier this month, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) — which blamed Israel for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel mere hours after images and videos of the terrorist organization’s brutality spread online — filed a brief which compared Zionists to segregationists who defended white supremacy during Jim Crow, while arguing that Harvard’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — used by hundreds of governing institutions and widely accepted across the political spectrum — is an instrument of conspiracy and racist oppression.
“Adopting the IHRA definition, granting special status to Zionism, and penalizing pro-Palestinian student groups risks violating the Title VI rights of Palestinians on campus,” the filing said. “There is ample evidence that adoption of IHRA and other policies which limit speech supporting Palestinian rights are motivated by an intent to selectively silence Palestinians and students who advocate on behalf of Palestinians. Such action cannot be required by, and indeed appear to violate, Title VI [of the Civil Rights Act].”
The document added, “Though the main text of the definition is relatively benign, the illustrative examples — seven of the eleven which pertain to criticism of Israel — make clear that they are aimed at preventing Palestinians from speaking about their oppression.”
Similar arguments were put forth in other briefs submitted by groups which have cheered Hamas and spread blood libels about Israel’s conduct in Gaza, including the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and other anti-Zionist groups.
“Harvard’s incorporation of IHRA was an overdue and necessary response to the virulent and unchecked antisemitic discrimination and harassment on its campus,” the Brandeis Center said in its response to the arguments, noting that Harvard itself has determined that embracing the definition is consistent with its obligations under Title VI, which have been reiterated and stressed by the US Office for Civil Rights (OCR) guidance and two executive orders issued by President Donald Trump.
“Misunderstandings about what antisemitism means — and the form it takes — have long plagued efforts to address antisemitic conduct. Modern versions of antisemitism draw not only on ancient tropes, but also coded attacks on Zionism and the Jewish state, which often stand in for the Jewish people in modern antisemitic parlance,” the organization continued. “Sadly, this is nothing new: Soviet propagandists for decades used the term ‘Zionist’ or ‘Zio’ in this coded way. This practice has become commonplace among antisemites in academia who seek to avoid being labeled as racists.”
The Brandeis Center also argued that IHRA does not “punish or chill speech” but “provides greater transparency and clarity as to the meaning of antisemitism while honoring the university’s rules protecting free speech and expression.” The group stopped short of urging a decision either for or against Harvard, imploring the court to “disregard” the briefs submitted by PSC, JVP, and MESA.
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard sued the Trump administration, arguing that it bypassed key procedural steps it must, by law, take before sequestering federal funds. It also said that the Trump administration does not aim, as it has publicly pledged, to combat campus antisemitism at Harvard but to impose “viewpoint-based conditions on Harvard’s funding.”
The Trump administration has proposed that Harvard reform in ways that conservatives have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Its “demands,” contained in a letter the administration sent to interim Harvard president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implored Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
On Monday, the attorneys general of Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, and 12 other states said the Trump administration took appropriate action to quell what they described as Harvard University’s flagrant violation of civil rights laws concerning its handling of the campus antisemitism crisis as well as its past history of violating the Constitution’s equal protection clause by practicing racial preferences in admissions.
“Harvard both admits that it has a problem with antisemitism and acknowledges that problem as the reason it needs a multi-agency Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. Yet when the federal government acted to rectify that acknowledged violation of federal law through a negotiated practice, Harvard cried retaliation,” the attorneys general said in their own brief. “Its characterization of its refusal to follow federal nondiscrimination law as First Amendment speech is sheer chutzpah.”
They continued, “There is strong evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory animus, and the First Amendment does not shield it from consequences. This court should deny summary judgement and allow the federal government to proceed with enforcing the law. Perhaps if Harvard faces consequences for violating federal antidiscrimination law, it will finally stop violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
Trump addressed a potential “deal” to settle the matter with Harvard last Friday, writing on his Truth Social platform, saying a “deal will be announced over the next week or so” while praising the university’s legal counsel for having “acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.” He added, “If a settlement is made on the basis that is currently being discussed, it will be ‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC, and very good for our Country.”
To date, Harvard has held its own against the federal government, building a war chest with a massive bond sale and notching a recent legal victory in the form of an injunction granted by a federal job which halted the administration’s restrictions on its international students — a policy that is being contested in a separate lawsuit. Garber has reportedly confirmed that the administration and Trump are discussing an agreement that would be palatable to all parties.
According to a report published by The Harvard Crimson on Thursday, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the University and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Civil Rights Nonprofit Slams Pro-Hamas Briefs Defending Harvard Lawsuit Against Trump first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media as US Attorney General Pam Bondi and US Attorney General Todd Blanche listen, on June 27, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect
The University of Virginia (UVA) is without a president following the reported resignation of James Ryan, a move which the US Justice Department stipulated as a condition of settling a civil rights case brought against the institution over its practicing racial preferences in admissions and hiring, a policy it justified as fostering “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).
As first reported by The New York Times, Ryan tendered his resignation in a letter to the university’s corporate board on Thursday, noting that he had originally intended to step down at the conclusion of the 2025-2026 academic year. Recent events hastened the decision, the Times added, including several board members’ insisting that Ryan leave to prevent the institution’s losing “hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding” that the Trump administration would have impounded had he remained in office.
Ryan drew the scrutiny of the Justice Department, having allegedly defied a landmark Supreme Court ruling which outlawed establishing racial identity as the determinant factor for admission to the university as well as a series of executive orders US President Donald Trump issued to shutter DEI initiatives being operated in the public and private sectors. Such programs have been accused of fostering a new “anti-white” bigotry which penalizes individual merit and undermines the spirit of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement by, for example, excluding white males from jobs and prestigious academic positions for which they are qualified.
Another DEI-adjacent practice was identified at UVA in 2024, when the Equal Protection Project, a Rhode Island based nonprofit, filed a civil rights complaint against the university which argued that its holding a BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) Alumni-Student Mentoring Program is discriminatory, claiming no public official would think it appropriate to sanction a mentoring program for which the sole membership criterion is being white. UVA later changed the description of the program, claiming that it is open to “all races, ethnicities, and national origins” even as it stressed that it was “created with BIPOC students in mind.”
The university’s tactics were allegedly employed to hide other DEI programs from lawmakers and taxpayers, with Ryan reportedly moving and concealing them behind new names. He quickly exhausted the patience of the Trump Justice Department, which assumed office only months after the BIPOC program was reported to federal authorities.
“This is further demonstration that the Trump administration is brutally serious about enforcement of civil rights laws. This will send shock waves throughout higher education, and it should,” Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, told The Algemeiner on Friday, commenting on the news. “It is a clear message that university leaders will be held accountable, personally and professionally, if they fail to ensure their institutions’ compliance.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, the Trump administration is leading a campaign against colleges and universities it has deemed as soft on campus antisemitism or excessively “woke.” Over the past several months, the administration has imposed catastrophic financial sanctions on elite universities including Harvard and Columbia, rattling a higher education establishment against which conservatives have lodged a slew of criticisms for decades. The actions coincide with a precipitous drop in public support for academia caused by an explosion of pro-Hamas demonstrations on campuses and the promotion of views which many Americans perceive as anti-meritocratic, anti-Western, and racist.
Since January, the administration has impounded $3 billion in Harvard’s federal funds over the institution’s refusal to agree to a wishlist of policy reforms that Republican lawmakers have long argued will make higher education more meritocratic and less welcoming to anti-Zionists and far-left extremists. Contained in a letter the administration sent to Harvard interim president Alan Garber — who subsequently released it to the public — the policies called for “viewpoint diversity in hiring and admissions,” the “discontinuation of [diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives],” and “reducing forms of governance bloat.” They also implore Harvard to begin “reforming programs with egregious records of antisemitism” and to recalibrate its approach to “student discipline.”
Columbia University has announced that it acceded to similar demands put forth by the Trump administration as prerequisites for the restoration of its federal funds — including a review of undergraduate admissions practices that allegedly discriminate against qualified Jewish applicants, the enforcement of an “anti-mask” policy that protesters have violated to avoid being identified by law enforcement, and enhancements to the university’s security protocols that would facilitate the restoration of order when the campus is disturbed by unauthorized demonstrations.
Harvard is reportedly prepared to strike a deal with Trump as well, according to a Thursday report by The Harvard Crimson.
Garber, the paper said, held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
The Crimson added, “He also did not discuss how close a deal could be and said instead that Harvard had focused on laying on steps it was already taking to address issues that are common ground for the university and the Trump administration. Areas of shared concern that have been discussed with the White House included ‘viewpoint diversity’ and antisemitism.”
Meanwhile, others continue to argue that Trump’s reforms of higher education threaten to mire the university in politics while describing Ryan’s resignation as a setback for academic freedom.
“It is a sign that major public research universities are substantially controlled by a political party whose primary goal is to further its partisan agenda and will stop at nothing to bring the independence of higher education to heel,” Michigan State University professor Brendan Cantwell told Inside Higher Ed on Friday. “It undercuts both the integrity of academic communities as self-governing based on the judgement of expert professionals and the traditional accountability that public universities have to their states via formal and established governance mechanisms.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post University of Virginia President Resigns Amid DEI Controversy With Trump Administration first appeared on Algemeiner.com.