The cost of independence

Harvard University and Grove City College are very different schools. Grove City is a small, conservative, Christian college. Harvard is a large, progressive, secular university. But soon, they might have something significant in common. To preserve its independence, Grove City College has long rejected all federal financial assistance. Now, Harvard may be forced to do the same.

Harvard President Alan Garber sent a letter to alums explaining Harvard’s predicament. In that letter he stated: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” His words reminded me of what Grove City’s president said when I was a student: “As a private Christian College, we have a legitimate concern about federal interference in what we teach and how we teach it.”

Garber’s letter insists that Harvard “will not surrender its independence.” So too with Grove City. Independence is one of the college’s core values.

But independence comes at a price. For Grove City, it meant nearly a decade of litigation over federal funding that ended in 1984 at the U.S. Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Grove City College v. Bell, the college chose faith and freedom over federal funds and decided to operate without the benefit of federal taxpayer dollars.

Forgoing federal largesse imposed financial discipline and forced the college to control costs, find alternative sources of funding, and avoid the administrative bloat that plagues many universities. It was the hardest, and best, decision ever made at Grove City.

Today, many schools have more administrators than professors. Why should anyone expect federal funds to subsidize bizarre research projects and armies of educational administrators who pursue objectives contrary to law and opposed by taxpayers? And are the schools that employ those administrators better off because of it?

Listening to the jeremiad from many in the higher education community might lead one to think that attaching strings to federal educational dollars is a new idea. It is not. The Obama administration attempted to use those strings to alter campus disciplinary processes and to force schools to adopt its understanding of gender.

Until now, it has been easy for a school like Harvard to accept federal funds. There has not been much daylight between Harvard’s priorities and those of the federal government. But now that’s changing. Even so, Harvard’s community should have the freedom to pursue the objectives it deems most worthy. And Grove City should be free to pursue its distinctly Christian vision of higher education.

I don’t like it when government is weaponized against Christian colleges and ministries (or the Tea Party), and I don’t like it when government is weaponized against secular universities. But academic freedom doesn’t mean taxpayers should foot the bill.

I suspect many citizens have been stunned to learn the extent to which federal taxpayer dollars support schools like Harvard. It far exceeds the taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood that has troubled many Christians. To be sure, much of the research done at Harvard is valuable. But some of the work taxpayer dollars support at Harvard is no better than what one might find at Planned Parenthood. True respect for freedom of conscience requires us to value that ideal at both the institutional and individual levels.

When a school accepts money from the federal government, it subjects itself to hundreds of pages of regulations—and whatever conditions the government might impose down the road. Few schools would accept a gift on those terms if the donor’s name were John Smith instead of Uncle Sam.

Jesus taught that no man can serve two masters—God and money. Harvard’s priorities (some might say Harvard’s gods) might be different from Grove City’s, but the lesson applies just the same. Federal money comes with strings attached. Those strings compromise a school’s independence and threaten its mission.

I graduated from Grove City and then graduated from Harvard Law School. I am in a unique position to know both schools. I hope Harvard has the courage of its convictions. But if Harvard means what it says, it should wean itself off of the federal spigot. If a small Christian college in Pennsylvania can remain truly independent, Harvard can too. It might be Harvard’s best decision.