It's Night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ Boxton's Radio.
All right, Dan Watkins, thank you very much. That is up to the minute score on the Red Sox game. I can attest to that, but hey, you know, it's not what you call a big offensive night for either team in Milwaukee. Now let's get back to the issues at hand. I have tried. We spoke on Friday night a little bit about this, but the more I've thought about this, the more I am perplexed. Normally, I can figure the motives of most politicians because I've covered politicians
for a long time. So if you remember, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard in April, they've been in they were in communications with them and the Harvard lawyers who are outside council. They're not Harvard lawyers per se. They are lawyers hired by Harvard, including Robert Herr. He was the for assistant US attorney who interviewed President Biden
in October of twenty twenty three. The interview was about the papers, in large part about the papers that had been found in the president's the former president's garage and
near his corvette that he was so proud of. And if you remember, her was criticized by Democrats because he had basically said that Biden didn't understand a lot of the questions and gave on responsive answers to the deposition the questions that were asked by her special council her, and he came away with the conclusion that he referred
to Biden, I think as a confused older person. He used pleasant language, but essentially said that there was no way that then in twenty twenty three, President Biden would be capable of standing any sort of a trial. So basically her in effect shut down the investigation of what did the president know and when did he know it?
About the papers that he had kept going back to his days in the Senate, And of course that all came out of the investigation that the Biden Justice Department had conducted, the doubt with the raid of mar A Lago and the boxes of documents that President then former President Trump allegedly had in his possession that he kept that he should not have kept, et cetera. But so so,
Her is not somebody who is unreasonable. He's sort of he's a he's a good lawyer for for Harvard to hire, and the other lawyer I do not know William Burke, that both lawyers deep deep in Washington law firms. So here's here's a little bit of the letter. Here's my bottom line. My bottom line is that this letter was in effect a letter that said, look, you're right on many many items, and we have we have changed our ways.
We're representing Harvard, but we are telling you, on behalf of Harvard, that we have changed our ways and we realize that we need to do more. So I want to read just some of thesements that were made. Now, this obviously did not satisfy the administration, and now they're trying to prevent Harvard, trying to knock out their five oh one C three status, which would have a real impact on Harvard because that would mean people who contribute to Harvard would no longer be able to take those
contributions as tax deductions. And in addition, if Harvard was earning any interest of dividends on their fifty three billion dollar endowment, they then could potentially lose their tax exempt status and be taxed on that. So that would mean that the fifty three billion dollar endowment would diminish quickly because of two things. One of some contributions would dry up, and then taxes would have to be paid on interested dividends. And I would suspect that on fifty three billion dollars,
all of that is invested by Harvard University. So this is the letter, and just let me start off with a couple of them, just to show you the tone of the letter. The tone is not confrontational. The tone is concessionary. So this is the letter Harvard. It's addressed to the Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service to GSA, the Acting General Counsel of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the Acting General Counsel of the
US Department of Education. We represent Harvard University the lawyer's right. We're writing in response to your letter to April dated April eleventh. This letter was dated April fourteenth, and that letter was addressed to Alan Garvin, the Harvard's president, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the group that actually runs Harvard. Quote, Harvard is committed to fighting anti Semitism and other forms of bigotry in its community.
Anti Semitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard's value, but also threatening its
academic mission. Goes on to say, to that end, Harvard has made and will continue to make lasting and robust structural, policy and programmatic changes to ensure the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community, free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies,
whatever their source. Okay, a little bit of lingo there. Over the past fifteen months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. Fifteen months takes us back to December of twenty twenty three, when the former president of Harvard, Claudie Gay, had that disastrous appearance in front of Congress
which cost her her job. She resigned as president. It meaning Harvard has made changes to its campus use policies, adopted new accountability procedures, imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies, enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse. Hired staff to support these programs and support students, changed partnerships, dedicated resources to combat hate and bias, and enhanced safety and security measures.
All as a result, Harvard is a very different place today from where it was a year ago. That's an acknowledgment right there that Harvard all of those things have changed. And these are things that the Trump administration could point to, in my opinion, with great pride and say, look what
we've accomplished. Our pressure has accomplished this. The paragraph continues, these efforts and additional members measures the university will be taking against anti semitism not only are the right thing to do, but also are critical to strengthening Harvard's community as a place in which everyone can thrive. I'll read more of the letter when I get back, But the point that I'm trying to make, and I hope the point that I'm making clear to you, is Harvard has
made concessions. Now. I don't understand why the Trump administration feels it has to continue to go after Harvard. Colombia behaved, and Columbia's professional staff and their faculty and their students behaved much worse than Harvard did. In the wake of October seventh, there's no question about that. And in for example, the entire last academic year, for some reason, President Trump is not willing to take the victory. I think it's a huge mistake. He has bigger fish to fry right now.
The economy, the border Ukraine, Russia, the Middle East, the tariffs. These are huge issues. The failure which of any of them, could do irreparable harm to his legacy and to his administration. If you can explain to me what makes Donald Trump tick. They have put in fine bold print that they have changed policies. And I'm sure that if the Trump administration said, please break down for us in a second follow up letter the specific changes you've made, I'm sure Harvard would
be very happy to do that. What is the president and his staff thinking? At some point public opinion will swing from the president to Harvard, whether he realizes.
That or not.
Six one seven, two five four ten already six one seven? Is the president incapable of taking a victory lap? I don't understand it. Uh? It is. It is certainly dumb politically, UH, And I think it's counterproductive. I'd love to get your take. We're coming back on Night Side. Maybe you can figure it out, I shore Kan.
It's night Side with Boston's news radio.
All right, So I want to continue here just for a moment, and then we'll go to phone calls. Be fact, I'm going to phone. Let me go to phone calls right now. You know the point I'm making up. I'll have to re emphasize it here. But you know, Harvard has made concessions. This this I just don't get it. Let me go to Sam and Medfid see what Sam thinks. Hey Sam, welcome to Nightside. How are you tonight, sir?
So I'm doing great, So hellout you and thanks for taking my call.
You're very welcome. Thanks for thanks for joining us. My You know, my belief is that Harvard has actually made concessions, has has said this is what we've done. Why would the president not turn around and declare victory and say him now I'm moving on to other things. What's wrong with that strategy?
Ah? I don't know, something stokes his ego or something. I mean, why kick the dead house? They already made concessions. You got to make the lab focus on Ukraine. Those rare minerals deal who work with Putin and focus the energy is where you get more buck for the bangrad than beating all the good institutions in your own country. Right, it does not you got what you wanted, they changed and just move on.
Yeah, I mean, even if even if let us say, a year from now, he felt that they did not follow through, he can always go back and resurrect his war against Harvard. But with he could quote from this letter and say Harvard has acknowledged they've changed. They can use He could use Harvard's words against them, And if a year from now things that aren't going as well as he wants them to go, he could say, look,
I was I was a gentleman, I walked away. I acknowledge, but they have not followed through, and now we're really going after I don't it's mystifying to me. I guess, I don't know.
Maybe maybe Harvard in the past never called him for some graduation ceremonies or something, so that must have stalked to the ego. But he should let it go. He should take the high road.
I guess. Yeah, Uh, are you a Trump supporter or no?
You know, I think I'm told in the past, then I'm a big believer for whosoever is doing the right thing for the country.
I believe more in Yeah.
I believe more in actions than words. Everything else is words are cheap.
Oh, I'm with you on that. But my question, I guess what my question is.
I'm independent dependent.
Okay, So what I'm saying is, you're not somebody. There are a lot of people who love him and he can do no wrong, and then there are people who don't like him and he can do no right. But if you're an independent.
Good He's done good things about immigration. I'll have to give him that. But I mean everybody has good in that. Some things are good, but some things are not good invited.
I think he's making a mistake. I think he's spending political capital here that he doesn't have to spend on a fight that he could easily claim. Hey, I'm right, they can. They made concessions, Sam, Thank you much. I appreciate it.
Thank you very much, thank you. Thanks, thanks for taking me pleasure talking to all.
Right, let me go to Ed in Worcester. See what he thinks. I think Ed is kind of favorably inclined generally to Trump. I hope I haven't mischaracterized you, Ed.
No, no, no, I'm I'm completely in favor of this. I don't think it's an unwise political move at all, not not.
For his base.
I think his base is very enthusiastic about it.
So's his basis thirty eight right, you got to get more than your base in twenty twenty six to hold the House or increase your your membership in the House. You heard what I read in the letter that was written that was written to him on August fourteenth. Why would he not take those words and say, hey, I've won.
Well, two things, don't. I don't think they're sincere. I don't believe that they're sincere about making any meaningful concessions. And secondly, you know, he's he's only got a short time in office, and he's got a even shorter time till the midterm elections. If he wants to do important things, he has to frontload them. And I think he knows that and that's why he's giving everything, especially this such a priority. I mean, I just don't. I don't take
these people at their word, don't. I don't trust them anymore than I would trust Latimer. There's another that's something I disagree with Trump on. I wish you wouldn't trust that guy.
Well, look, uh what, Look, he's got so much on his plate head, you know, nothing.
More important than this, nothing more important than this?
Oh really okay? I would argue, I would argue that dealing with Iran and the whole Middle East, a boiling pot of whatever, is pretty important. I would argue that the tariff, the fights on the fight on tariffs, as it might impact for better or worse than national economy. I think he's he's done well on the border, and I think that from his perspective, he pretty much can say, hey, I closed, I closed the border as I promised I would. But I don't know that getting Harvard to you know,
he can't micromanage Harvard. He can't micromanage any of these places. Do you think that the Supreme Court as currently constituted is going to give him the right to tell Harvard whether or not they can or any of any college in America whether or not they can admit foreign students. Do you think the Court as currently composed will support him on that.
I think they'll support him that he can cut off their funding, and I certainly think the Republican majorities in Congress want to cut off their funding, but they can do what they want, but they can't do what they want with taxpayer money and with a tax exemption. And I think he should go beyond that.
I think, how do you how do you remove the tax exem status of any company that has the tax exempt status? You know as well as I do. You're a lawyer. The concept of the burden of proof is upon him in this situation, or upon the administration to remove tax exem status. If they're going to focus on Harvard and Columbia, it would be an easier task if they wanted to get rid of tach, get rid of five or once three across the board, but that would have to be done by Congress.
And that's I think they should.
I think I said that before on your show. I think they should.
Yeah, well, so, okay, you think that's a political winner in twenty twenty eight.
If you don't win the culture or nothing else matters. Well, if you don't win the culture, nothing else matters.
Okay, I hear you. I guess you and I are going to see it fundamentally differently. I look at this letter and I think to myself, there is an intermediate victory that he could declare. He could say these are the words that the Harvard lawyers have written to my administration. I accept the words as written. I take them at their word. I assume they will follow through on their words. We will check back in a year to see if they're followed through.
Okay, right, yours? I want to I want to be the first. I want to be the first one to announce on me or something I've been saying for I don't think we're moving their tax exact is enough. I would go into these colleges and universities. I would nationalize them. I would confiscate all their property.
That's that's good.
That's got you know?
Oh yeah, uh, that you know. I guess I'm flabbergasted by that. By what right? By what right? Now? We are now we are talking about state fascism for real.
Well, any any any government on earth has the right to nationalize property if it gives compensation.
Wait a second, Wait a second. You you got what the government might have a right to do doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Ed you're serious, I said earlier, if you don't win the culture, nothing else matters.
Well, I don't think you win the culture by overreacting, and and and and and putting arm beans on people and putting them in funny little uniforms. I don't think that America or maybe five percent of the country would support that, but but that would be the that would be the extent of it. We have reached a fundamental disagreement, my friend. As always, thank you for your call. Thank you very much. Okay, I said that I thought that Ed was supporting I. And by the way, Ed is
very intelligent, lawyer out of Worcester, very intelligent. But I think that is way over at the top, way over the top. Back on Night's Side, right after the news. If that doesn't light it up, I don't know what will. We'll be back on Nightside right after this.
It's Nightside, Boston's news radio.
Well. I think Ed was an interesting caller. I think le we go to Donna in Northborough. Hey, Donna, welcome next on Nightside.
Hey Dan, happy to be here. How are you doing?
I'm doing just great? Where where do you stand on this great debate? I I just sometimes you gotta you gotta, you know, when you go to Las Vegas and you've won, sometimes you take the money and you walk away.
Well sometimes, but I believe it's the country at stake at this point, so you might need to let that ride a little bit. I have been fascinated by what President Trump is doing. I'm an independent I go where I think the country will do best. Okay, and and I thought Trump was the right choice. I think most people did with So yeah, that's more than more than fifty.
So I'm thinking the wax on wax off. You know, like in the beginning of the Karate Kid, nobody knew why he was doing wax on wax off, but when it came, when it counted, then you found out. So I'm seeing that that Trump is uh revealing himself in layers.
Okay, I don't get the karate kid metaphor, but that's our analogy. But I'm not a karate kid guy. But that's well.
I think that we don't know what he's doing. I don't think anybody but him and the people that he has doing this are aware of, you know, where where the bar is and if he's.
Trying to test, if he's trying if what your argument is that he's trying to test the powers of the presidency.
No, no, no, what my argument is is that I don't know, and you don't know where he's going with this, Where he's going with this, well, right.
But I'm saying right, but but I think that ultimately we're talking about the powers of the presidency. I mean, I don't think the president has the power to prevent universities from uh enrolling students foreign students. I don't see. I don't see where that power exists anywhere.
In my opinion, I don't think that's his goal. I don't think that's his goal at all. I think that he's using that as a chip to gain what he ultimately wants, which is fairness. You know, you're looking at fairness and sports, and women's sports in particular. You're looking at fairness with regard to race, cultures, ethnicity, sexuality. All of that fairness is in question, you know, in different areas.
And guess what in many of those areas, I might agree with where I think he's going. But I don't think it's fair to try to tell Harvard, as a university that's been around since sixteen thirty six and a fairly successful, one private university, that they can or cannot accept students who happen to be from outside the United States. I think that is way beyond any power that the founders imagine. I agree the president would have, so I just and I just.
I agree with you, But I honestly don't think that's where he's trying to go. I think he's just using that as a bargaining chip. Look at the letter from her, Look at he's gotten somewhere. And I agree with you. In some cases, maybe that would be, you know, you take all the chips off the table because you're winning. But I don't know where he's going with it.
Well, I just I guess I don't know where I want. Yeah, I don't know where he's going either, But I will tell you this. I think I think the strategy that he's currently employee employing is going to be dangerous to his u to his presidency, and dangerous to him electing more Republicans in twenty twenty six. That's the point I
was trying to make that your're sometimes in politics. Politics is the art of compromise, and as smart politician will say, Okay, I'm not going to get everything I want, but I'm going to get something, and I do have something in this letter from her, And he could he could go on and say, look, we're making progress admitted. You know, he's not claiming her is admitting, and the other lawyer's admitting.
I think that's if he was smart and not a maglomaniac, because he's beginning to me looking like a meglomaniac that he somehow wants to run the admissions office at Harvard.
Does huh?
I don't think he does. I really don't think he does.
Well, I'll tell you, well, when you figure out where he's going, I want you to call me back, because I think you're going to figure it out before me.
Together.
Thanks, don appreciate you call.
Have a good one, all right, Take care.
No one knows Harvard University better than my caller, Harvey Silver. Gleat Harvey, if you can bring some clarity to this situation. I know you you were not a fan of Donald Trump, but just from a strategic point of view, I don't understand the strategy.
I think I do, Dan, Okay, what is it? He wants to subject gate the richest, the most powerful, the oldest university in the nation because it refuses to heal to his commands. Colombia folded like a cheap suit.
Well, I think Columbia. I think Columbia had a lot to be responsible for it. To be honest with you, I think Columbia is a different situation than Harvard, to be honest with you.
Yeah, I agree with that.
And I think that I think that they're they're what they allowed to happen on their campus, the Jewish students and what they allowed to happen on their campus. And some of the comments that were made there was that one professor from from Columbia who was quoted on camera. He was saying that that October seventh exhilarated him.
I mean, I agree with I agree with all of that, Okay, but Harvard has decided to draw the line. And what Trump, what's bothering Trump is not anti Semitism. I don't think he gives a damn about yous about anti semitism.
Fair enough, Okay, I'll accept that for that. I'll accept that for the that argument go ahead.
What bothers him is that Harbor has stood up to him. Alan Garber the provost, and Jehan Manning the provosts, and Alan Garber the president have said no. And that is what bugs him the most.
Okay, you heard me. Read that last paragraph, and you're more familiar with the Garber letter because you talked You talked to Garber, and I don't yes that that last that para in which they said, over the last fifteen months, Harvard's done this, They've done this, They've done this, they had there was a litany of things that they have done.
If you were Donald Trump's lawyer and you've defended people, you know who you weren't necessarily fond of, let me put it like that, as any good lawyer would what advice would you give him? Would you tell him at this point? Would you tell him what I'm what I would say to him. Look, you have statements from Harvard here which support that support your position. Take the victory, say that you'll check back a year from now, but
walk away from it from now. Would you would you not advise your client if it were if it were Donald Trump to do that?
Of course I would. But that isn't what Donald Trump wants. Fair Enough, he doesn't care about any of these issues. He cares about subjugation.
He at at the end of the day, as his lawyer, don't you have to say to him you're going to lose on this. You you might you might win in on uh some issue here or there. But on most of these issues, you're going to lose. You're not going to be able to take away their five or one C three status.
Dan, Yeah, what makes you think he's going to obey a court order?
I think it's I think it's called I think it's called the Justice Department. I think it's called the US Supreme Court. I think it's called, if necessary, the US Military. I think that he would be insane if if if, I mean absolutely certifiably insane, if we ever got to the point that he was going to defy a court order, which would be then backed.
Nobody, nobody ever accused Donald Trump of being sane. Let me point something out.
I think he's more sane than people realize. To be honest with.
You, let me let me, let me let me point something out. You talked about the law firm that represents Harvard. Is that the firm of Wilma Hale Washington.
No, no, no, no, no, no. Wilmahale does not. And you know as well as I do, that will Mahale made some concessions, et cetera. No, these these are two individual lawyers, William Burke with un Emmanuel your car and Sullivan, I'm unfamiliar with that firm. And then Robert Hurt, who I'm very familiar with King and Spalding, and he was the guy that did the depositions with that deposition with President Biden in October twenty twenty three.
I'm very samated with Quinn Emmanuel, a partner who recently retired. Captain Sullibum was dean of the Harvard Law School for many years.
Yes, sure, her name's on the mastead YEP. Okay, so well, I just look, I think that if you know, if people really believe that, I find it impossible to think that even if he has hired and is now employing some bad people, that's he's smart enough to know. I just think it's impossible to think that he would defy a US Supreme Court order. That's all. That's all. I think that.
Nobody ever accused him of being smart. He's wiley.
He's wiley. He's also been able to come back and done something that no other president other than Grover Cleveland had done to be able to come back. And I never thought that he would be re elected after I never thought he'd be elected in twenty sixteen, and I've underestimated Donald Trump many times. Okay, I will admit to that, and I will acknowledge that, but I mean, yeah, okay, we'll see.
It. Say have harbored cry uncle. He wants to win this battle.
I think that cried uncle already. And I think that if he was smart, he would he would accept win and then say I will continue to monitor them. And he's got other things on his plate right now, which in my opinion, how much more important taris the economy, the Middle East, Russia, Ukraine whatever. Anyway, Harvey as always, thank you for your wisdom, Thank you for your wisdom and your and your perspective. It's it's well needed. Thank you.
On a break, Gotta get to a break. Coming right back on Nightside.
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on Boston's news radio.
I'm gonna go next to Matt and Franklin. Matt, you were next to Nightside. Welcome.
Yeah.
I'm a tough time trying to figure out what Trump's doing. It seems like he's tearing the DOJ into his like frivolous lawsuit department, and he's kind of like all over the map on like what he is trying to accomplish. In his second term, and uh, it's like he's not gonna win. And my question for you is, like, could some of not necessarily trauma because some of his cabin people get sued civilly from Harvard after this all over.
No. No, most people who are UH in official public offices either immune from any sort of a civil lawsuit or they are they're indentified. I mean, if there was a a cabinet official who went out and and and held up a bank tonight, could he be he or she be prosecuted, of course. But if in the course of their uh actions as as a public official, you know, took an action that they they might lose that action in court, but that they cannot They're not going to be sued then in a civil fashion. No.
Absolutely, like breaking the law with some of these things they're doing.
No, if you talk about breaking the law, Uh, that's that's a criminal statute. Okay. But these are primarily policy questions. Now Trump can say, well, Harvard hasn't gone far enough. That's a policy question, okay, So he's fine there. Or if someone if he directs someone in his in his administration to file a lawsuit or to to file a motion for this or for that. That's he's trying to impose policies, so he would be that's not a problem.
But but politically there comes a point in time where as you said, he's doing things that might appear to be frivolous. Look, you've got tariffs, You've got Russia Ukraine, you have a big, beautiful tax bill that is in front of the Senate, which maybe is really a lynchpin
of his administration. You have all of these important battles, not to mention the border, uh, as well as his ability to send people out of the country who are here for no good reason, are here to cause problems, and in many cases to send people out of the country who have been convicted of criminal behavior. Those are important.
Yeah, I mean, I agree on that's up, but it seems like it's all right, I'm gonna get rid of the Department of Education, but while I'm doing that, I'm gonna have a Department of Education, get rid of Harvard and then oh, I'm going to get rid of the I R S, but I want the I R S at the same time to uh get rid of the tax um status. And then while I'm doing this, he's.
He's not going to get rid of the I R S. And I also don't think that he can. I don't think he can say to Harvard. You know, if Harvard, for example, tomorrow said we have decided we are no longer accepting students of a certain racial category uh to to come to our school because we hate people who are of this racial category, then that is when he could pu vely probably withdraw the five A one seed
free status. But that's not what Harvad's doing. Harvard might be admitting, in Donald Trump's opinion and in my opinion, too many students from overseas. But but that's a decision. That's Harved's decision, not my decision, not Donald Trump's decision, not your decision. That's the that's the point I'm trying to make.
Yeah, I just think he is going to have a miserable time with the midterms, and it's gonna be like, well, like you're going to just stick around.
Truly, he'll be truly a lame dock. He's going to be a lame duck president after the midterms because he won't be able to run for a third term despite his musings. No Supreme Court is going to say Oh, yeah, we'll overturn. We'll allow you to run for a third term. I mean, that's I've always looked at that as he's trolling people. He's in their head, rant free. But to pursue Harvard after Harvard has made what I would construe with concessions. This is boilerplate language that he could use
to say, Look, Harvard did bend. I forced Harvard to bend. It was a great victory for the Trump administration. And now we're going to make sure that they continue with these policies the promises that made. Let's move on. That would be the smart thing to do, in my opinion, but obviously I'm not in the majority at this point.
Yeah, I just think it's gonna drag on for like the whole year, and then well we're gonna get what We're gonna get closer and closer to the mid terms without accomplishing anything, and then he will pay.
A price and the Republicans will pay a price. Thank you, Matt, appreciate your call. Here comes the Ted. We're gonna stay with it. The only line we have one line at six months, seven, two, five, four to ten thirty, and we have one line at six months, seven, nine, three, one, ten thirty conversation has been a little longer than I want them to be. We will pick up the pace starting with Tom, Lou and Jim, and we have room for you coming back on Nightside.