The Dispatch Podcast - Trump vs. Harvard | Interview: Harvey Mansfield

Episode Date: May 12, 2025

Harvard professor Harvey Mansfield joins Jamie Weinstein to discuss the Trump administration’s fight against Harvard and its protest culture on campus. The Agenda:—Harvard’s lefty culture—Are Jewish students safe on campus?—Let’s stick to the Constitution—Elites in democracy—Defining successful studentsShow Notes:—Professor Mansfield's columns in the Crimson The Dispatch Podcast is a production of ⁠The Dispatch⁠, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch’s offerings—including members-only newsletters, bonus podcast episodes, and regular livestreams—⁠click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Dispatch podcast. I'm Jamie Weinstein. My guest today is a returning one, Harvey Mansfield, the long-time professor at Harvard University, one of the few conservative professors on the faculty, taught there for over 50 years before retiring last year. He famously taught some of the biggest names in politics. He always comes packed with insight. So we brought him on to discuss the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration and many other topics. As always, I think you're going to find this episode. of interesting, but this one particularly fascinating. So without further ado, I give you Professor Harvey Mansfield. Professor Harvey Mansfield, welcome back to the dispatch podcast. Thanks, good to be here. Well, Professor, it's always good to have you on, but I've thought of you as the mounting battle between Harvard and the Trump administration heats up. So let me begin by just asking you, what do you make of this fight between Harvard

in the Trump administration? The Trump administration wants Harvard to change its life, to cease to be the one-sided partisan institution that it appears to be and to become the non-partisan institution that it says it is. And so the Trump administration has put forth strong demands

that would make Harvard a kind of verse in a put in a receivership, which all his decisions would be audited. And the federal government, which means the Trump administration, would be looking over his shoulder and questioning everything that it did. So Harvard naturally refuses that, and it is done so with a lawsuit

so that it's made its rejection pretty clear, but it doesn't really know what to do. Harvard is in a pickle. It's long practiced a very one-sided program called Diversity, which totally lacks the main feature of diversity,

which is viewpoint diversity, that is diverse opinions. It's formed almost an informal alliance with the Democratic Party. Its commencement looks like a... a renewal of the Democratic Convention that's held every four years. Its faculty consists of mostly left-wing or liberals to the point of 90% or so. Maybe only two or three percent conservatives. I'm one of those two or three percent. So I feel it.

So I think this lack of diversity in the claim of diversity that Harvard makes is the fundamental cause of the conflict between it and the Trump administration. But the precipitating cause, the cause which makes the fundamental clause more obvious was Harvard's treatment of... of Jews and discrimination against Jews. It's failure to do anything about protests by pro-Palestinians in the university who were supporting a band of rapists and murderers, the Hamas. So it's, so the Trump administration,

uses that particular point. There could have been other points earlier, but that particular point now, after the attack on October 7th of 2023, to go after Harvard for its lack of viewpoint diversity. The whole country has seen what has gone on college campuses since the October 7th attacks, and I think a lot of the country is revolted by what they saw.

But you mentioned what the demands were, at least in the April 11th letter, which may not have been sent by accident, according to the New York Times, effectively put Harvard in some type of receivership. Now, despite what we have seen on in recent days on the campus, much of the world still views Harvard as if not the preeminent academic institution among the top academic institutions by reputation. students still want to go there, even if they might not like what they see on the campus. Could Harvard accept a receivership? I mean, is it possible for them to accept those demands in that April 11th letter? Well, it says not. And that's the question is whether it can make that refusal stick. I would say probably it can't. I would think that in the first, Well, in the first place, the Howard administration was moving toward what the Trump administration now wants it to do. After the downfall of Claudine Gay, our president for six months, we've got a new president, Alan Garber, who has been gradually making short, but important steps all in one direction towards greater viewpoint diversity.

Viewpoint diversity, by the way, isn't quite as general as it sounds. It really means some kind of balance between Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives. It doesn't just mean a fresh new array of extreme viewpoints. So viewpoint diversity means political balance of some kind. Maybe not 50-50, but maybe 60-40. Now, so then your question is whether Harvard can win this battle. And my answer partly is that it doesn't really want to win, at least in its leadership. So what the Harvard leadership with President Garber can do is use this attack by the Trump administration

to quell and impress and stun the faculty, which doesn't really care about field point diversity, doesn't really think it's important, doesn't really want it to happen. that is to impress the faculty that the federal government means business and things cannot go on as they have. So in that way, I think the Trump administration, though it won't, I don't think, achieve the extent of its demands will nonetheless get a good part of them, get a good part of them, I'm satisfied that Harvard will have to make concessions. And even, yeah, even guarantees that there will be better relationship with the, between the two parties there. So do you view almost the administration welcoming the almost April 11th letter so they could show the faculty what is being demanded by the administration?

And even if they, so they don't, they won't go that far, but if they end up going. a little bit towards getting the viewpoint diversity that you mentioned, they'll say, well, we achieve victory by pushing them back the most rigorous demands of the administration, and maybe the administration will see that they got some achievement by pushing Harvard a little bit towards viewpoint diversity that you speak of. Yeah, that's a kind of win-win viewpoint, which is perhaps too optimistic, but I think there is a possibility, if not the probability of it as things stand. So, yeah, so, I think in general that the attack of the, not just the Trump administration, but Republicans generally, has been very good for Harvard and for other American universities.

First, the Republican Supreme Court, and then the Republican Congress leading to the downfall of Claudine Gay, and now this attack for, for lack of diversity and continuing discrimination. As I suggest, and I think that the viewpoint diversity is a more important issue than the discrimination against Jews. But the discrimination against Jews makes the viewpoint, the lack of viewpoint diversity more obvious. When you say it's a more important issue, are you saying that you don't think it's systemic

at the university that the discrimination against Jews will go away? or what makes viewpoint diversity do you think more important? I don't think that discrimination against Jews would have happened if the university hadn't been so dominated by the left. What has happened is that the left

has taken up discrimination against the Jews. When I was much younger and starting off, Jews regarded Republicans as their main enemy. A Republican was a person who lived in a country club that didn't allow Jews. So that typified the Republican Party. Now the situation has been pretty much

reversed, that it's the Democratic Party that is against Jews because it has decided to tolerate and even promote a pro-Palestinian faction. So it's quite different now. And that's, I think, why viewpoint diversity is more important than the discrimination against Jews. The discrimination arises from lack of conservatives and Republicans at Harvard. I don't think it would have happened otherwise. I want to get into the viewpoint diversity a little bit more. And you wrote about viewpoint diversity in the series of essays for the Harvard Crimson, which in itself may be emblematic of a little bit of a sea change

going on. How did it come to be that the Harvard Crimson asked you to write a series of essays on, I mean, I guess thematically, you know, what is it like to be a conservative professor or in a liberal university, or what should happen to, you know, how to push the campus more conservative? I don't know what the framing was, but how did that come to be? Yeah, I have no idea why they decided to do this, except that it seems to fit the general move right now, or the change in vibes is what people have been calling it. That, um, they, the editor just asked me to do a series of six, um, essays for that how the crimson, crimson, which is is the undergraduate newspaper.

In the first place, they hardly ever have professors there. Right, right, because this is meant to be the student's standpoint and not professors. And they certainly haven't invited a conservative like myself to do this. So you're right, I think it was emblematic of a new situation, a new, sort of stunned understanding that something has happened, that the universities cannot continue the way they have been. How old of the essays been received? Have you got any feedback from readers of it?

I'm told by the editors that they're very, actually, rather popular. We had one that, the last one, that made it to real clear politics, so I got some emails from, as a result of that. And, you know, people don't go around patting me on the back. But, yeah, I think they have said some kind of impact. It is strange to be a conservative. I can't say that I've been spat upon or shunned. Actually, my colleagues and the whole university have been rather congenial.

It's just that they listen to me, but don't ever follow what I say. Nor do I get any special honors. In fact, this is one of the few special honors that I've had. Let me tell you about another one that I've had, which is, I'm the only professor at Harvard who has been made fun of by the Harvard band at halftime during football games. I mean, that happened to me, that happened to me twice. So I can take that kind of criticism and laugh at it and even regarded as a kind of backhanded honor. It hasn't been bad for me at Harvard, and I love the place.

it's where I've taught for over 60 years well in fact in our last interview I asked you would not against it I don't want Harvard to die or on the contrary I want it to be stronger and to be better

I think it will be there's a good chance that it will be as a consequence of the Trump administration and also as I say of the other Republican initiatives against the university Well, I was going to say, I remember in our last conversation, maybe a year and a half ago, you mentioned that you would recommend to a student who got into Harvard, a conservative student, to go there. That's how much you still love it, despite all its flaws. I want to read one part of the articles that you wrote on free speech, because I thought it is an interesting jumping off point. Writing about free speech, you write, usually discussion of free speech focuses on free. I will change. change the focus to speech. Universities demand reasons and evidence, and to do so, they must insist

that classrooms and laboratories be unaffected by expressive noise. Those who want to express themselves inventing should do so in public spaces, not in the university. You go on, academic freedom, therefore, acts as a constraint upon free expression. They are not the same. Protest is inappropriate it where academic freedom reigns. Professor, are you saying that we are confusing, you know, the right to be able to speak freely in a public space with the right to stop other people from hearing speech in a private institution like Harvard, that these protests shouldn't be allowed because it affects people from wanting to, who want to hear speech from actually hearing the speech that they

want to hear. Yeah, here I go beyond the Harvard administration. and perhaps other people as well. I don't think that protests should be allowed on university campuses, political protests. They're kind of fake to begin with. They're trying to get Harvard to affect the war between Israel and Hamas,

as if Harvard could do that. If they want to do something that requires a change in American foreign policy, they should go to places of a public place, the Cambridge Common or down in front of City Hall in Cambridge. Or a lot of these people have money, they can go to Washington, D.C. and protest there. But they shouldn't be on the university compass interfering with the business of the university. That's precisely what they are doing, what they want to do. They want to get publicity for themselves by doing something that will attract it. And what will attract it is a violation of rules and of normal decorum. and, as I said, in this piece, a violation of academic freedom.

Academic freedom is the freedom to study and to study things as to whether they're true or false, whereas free speech is to affect public policy. So those two don't have really the same goal or the same men. methods. So, so, so, so that's what I think that protest is against, and are meant to be against academic freedom. This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the platform that helps you create a polished professional home online. Whether you're building a site for your business, your writing, or a new project, Squarespace brings everything together in one place. With Squarespace's cutting-edge design tools, you can launch

website that looks sharp from day one. Use one of their award-winning templates or try the new Blueprint AI, which tailors a site for you based on your goals and style. It's quick, intuitive, and requires zero coding experience. You can also tap into built-in analytics and see who's engaging with your site and email campaigns to stay connected with subscribers or clients. And Squarespace goes beyond design. You can offer services, book appointments, and receive payments directly through your site. It's a single hub for managing your work and reaching your audience without having to piece together a bunch of different tools. All seamlessly integrated. Go to Squarespace.com slash dispatch for a free trial. And when you're ready to launch, use offer code dispatch to save

10% off your first purchase of a website or domain. You would know this better than most, Professor, that since you have taught on the university for 50 years or more. When did protests, become, were they a something commonplace before the Vietnam War? Or did they, they, was that something new that you saw on campuses at the time of the Vietnam, but unheard of almost before that? Yeah, there were protests, but they were student type protests that, making a lot of noise the last day of classes or before a vacation. And, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, um, and, um, um, um, blasting out your high-fi to make other people listen to you.

And it was last for a couple of hours, and then that would be the end of it. And it didn't have any serious political or, needless to say, no serious academic. Purpose is just kind of a relief. And so that's youthful self-expression and doesn't really amount to a protest. I recall that from when I was young. I wonder if that's part of the issue, professor, is that some of the now professors who are in their prime of teaching

were in their prime of youth and maybe the greatest days of their life were in the Vietnam era and protesting on campus. And for them to come out against these protests is to come out against their formative experience as a college student. Yeah, I think that's a point frequently made

that the professors now are tenured radicals left over from the 1960. They're getting a little bit gray by now, though, and it's time really that they changed that ways. You mentioned viewpoint diversity earlier, and as a student 20 years ago at Cornell, I was part of an organization, Students for Academic Freedom, as a conservative student, they're trying to kind of push some of the issues that you mentioned. But I wonder, in this age of kind of the Trump-Republican, party, what does viewpoint diversity exactly look like? Is it possible to find a faction of professors

that are going to come defend tariffs? Having conservative professors, does that really fulfill viewpoint diversity of a Republican party that doesn't necessarily see itself as conservatism? Does viewpoint diversity, is it harder to define in this new era of Republican Party politics? No, harder to define if you want to make it into something. simple, but, you know, Trump is certainly different. He's an attack on normality. And in a way he resembles the people he opposes. He opposes the woke. And woke is a way of changing our way of thinking, especially our way of speaking with pronouns. And our way of thinking about sex, sexes.

It isn't that there are two sexes, as common sense says, but a whole variety, and you can have the sex that you choose. So, and Trump himself is a violator of norms and conventions. So he resembles, I think, the people that he poses in that way and does complicate things. He's, perhaps you could say, almost as little conservative. as he is a liberal. So, I mean, maybe more more concretely. He poses a big problem for, for conservatism.

That is for sure. But maybe more concretely, you know, in the, you know, economic department at Harvard, is there enough, you know, Ph.D. economists who, for instance, support tariffs to fill at least a quota of the Harvard economic faculty, much less of other universities who are trying to look for viewpoint diversity. In some of these areas,

is it possible to find, I mean, qualified academics to give that viewpoint diversity? That particular point on Tarros, I guess not. No, I think Trump would find himself opposed by both left and right. But he wants to show he's above us distinctions. In a way, he's part of the right,

and in a way he is against everybody who isn't for himself. I mean, for him. You, in your essay, preempted what you knew would be coming as one of the criticisms, which is, how can a professor who opposed affirmative action support a type of affirmative action for conservative faculty? Why don't you lay out your case

why those you believe are different circumstances? Affirmative action was for the sake of race and sex those are not opinions then so those are things you have regardless of your choice although people

feminists now want to say that you can choose your sex but you can't really so those are different from affirmative action for an opinion an opinion is something that contributes to the business

and the thinking of the university. So if you just have one side of opinion, you're not doing what a university needs to do. So the word diversity, which is so much misused, needs to include, indeed to feature what is a diversity of opinion. And what can conservatives contribute to diversity, of opinion. In general, I think that the two parties are representative of two very general currents of human thought, that most people when they look at, some people when they look at

a community, think that a community needs to be a whole that includes everybody. And if that inclusion into a community that is the most important thing. And inclusion is best guaranteed by making everybody equal, because then nobody has a reason to be excluded. So these are the liberals, and they look to see that people on the fringes or the margins of the community are not left out. So that is their main concern, both moral and political. They feel sorry for people who are vulnerable by not being members of the community or full members. So that's what they do. And what the Republicans or conservatives do, on the other hand, is to look at actual differences among human beings. Some people are better than others. They,

the Republicans sing, either because they're rich or because they're more able or they're better looking or they have some quality that people like and honor approve of which needs to be recognized. And so the most important thing is not to be equal in a community, but to be in a community that honors some more honorer. people than others. So, for example, Republicans believe that it's good to earn your living. That's a kind of democratic virtue. Everybody can do that.

It's better to earn your living than to live off taxpayer money that you get in a monthly check. And free money is not good for people. So this is a kind of general dispute in our country and I think in most any liberal democracy. Between those who feature empathy, that means for you're feel sorry for people who are beneath you and you want to raise their level versus those who believe in admiration. The first people sort of a party looks down on others and the second looks up on others. You look up to people that you admire and approve. So this is empathy versus admiration. And so what is left out when you don't have conservatives is the idea of admiration or that some people are better than others.

And that gives you a stilted and sort of halfway understanding of politics. Speaking of admiring achievement, last week we had on a guest who defended the first 100 days of the Trump administration. And what you heard from her and what you hear from a lot of people is they use the term elite disparagingly. You know, the elite did this, the elite did that. And maybe there's good reason or not good reason. But I wonder, do you think elite should be used as a pejorative? Is that something is that good for society? Or should the idea of an elite Harvard at one point, and maybe still, but viewed as an elite? Is that a good thing to have an elite? Yes, I just argued that from the conservative of a Republican point of view.

that, yes, elite has a good meaning as well as a bad. Now, it has a bad meaning because we're in a democracy, and in a democracy, the primary focus is always on equality. And elite doesn't fit into that notion very well. On the other hand, we do speak of elite universities and elite military units and so on, meaning something good. But, so now, because we live in a democracy,

it's always a case, I think, that there will be parties and especially people who attack the elite. It's just a feature of democracy that people feel irritated and, and disparaged by the fact, that some people are better in some way, better off or are just plain better than others.

But it's also a fact. Suppose everyone is equal. That would be the most democratic situation. Well, but who's going to do various jobs? Don't you need people who are experts in various jobs like plumbers and carpenters and so on, even not to say nothing of professors. And how are you going to get them

if no one concentrates on a particular thing and becomes expert in it? And doesn't that expert lead to, those experts lead to expertise and expertise to an elite? So even if you're thinking that everybody's equal, Still, those people who are able to support and fulfill the needs of a community are more needed. And they would always be an elite in some sense. I don't say that janitors are an elite, but they're needed.

They can think of themselves as an elite. That's magic, you might say, of democracy. we have ways of honoring the common man. So you can sort of erode the distinction between elite and the rest of us. And also, when experts are the elite, there are some things or some parts of their lives where they're not an elite. And that's especially when you vote. And when you vote, you're equal.

That's where the elite disappears. But then what is the result of voting? People who win. And they necessarily become an elite. And you can attack the elite as the establishment. But on the other end, in democracy, the thing is that the establishment is elected. and elected by those who vote equally.

So that's a democratic elite, and you could say it's a different elite from other elites, though it is still an elite. Professor, I want to ask you a few questions on our current political moment. I think you answered some of them earlier on another question. But you wrote or gave an interview somewhere, I think years ago,

where you said the Republican Party is the party of the Constitution. I wonder if you still believe that. Yes, I think if the Constitution has any party, it's the Republicans. That's not quite what you asked. But certainly Trump is a challenge to our Constitution and the constitutional conservatism that I particularly favor and want to stand for. So, Yes, I think there is a reason for concern that the Trump and the Trumpistas don't have much respect for the Constitution. They seem to have as little respect for it as some Democrats who regard the Constitution as good when it helps them and not good when it doesn't. as part of Trump's attack on normality, on the way things normally and conventionally have been and are.

But a society can't live without some notion of what is normal. And so the attempt to attack normality leads to a kind of chaos of thought and reaction. And Trump uses that and takes advantage of it. So I don't think one can regard him as a positive influence. I do think, as I said, that he's doing good for the universities right now, but that he opposes the Constitution. or plays with it, as if he could be elected, saying that for a third time.

That's his way. It isn't quite joking either, but it's as if it were joking. So he, our constitution is our most precious common possession. This is the thing that holds us, together, we should prize it very, very, very highly. The word venerate should be used. And so I think that aspect, that isn't even an aspect. It's almost the whole of what Trump

stands for, and it's not positive. We had a professor, Stanford professor, Larry Diamond on the show a few weeks ago, who has studied democracy, kind of his focus, both here and abroad. And he expressed grave concern about a threat to democracy under the Trump administration. I wonder if you feel that concern as well, or do you think some of the comments about the threat to our whole republic, democratic republic, constitutional republic, is under threat, is overblown. Where do you stand? Do you believe this is a clear and present danger, or do you think our institutions are strong enough

to withstand whatever attacks the president might, you know, due to the democracy? Look, Trump is a characteristic of democracy. He's not so much a threat of democracy is an expression of democracy at its worst. to say that we need to return to democracy forgets that democracy has a bad side as well as a good side.

That's why we need a constitution. So I would say democracy needs to go with constitution. Constitutional democracy is what Trump is a threat to and really a disapproval of. That's what he seems. to oppose. But the main reason why we need a constitution is that democracy isn't always good, that the people by themselves without institutions and forms and elections and norms, an institution is a convention and a normal way of doing things, an official way of doing things. That's what we

need because our country needs the normality and the unity and the division that goes with it. Divisions can be good when they separate out differences that are important and that are useful, for example, a difference between a legislature and an executive. That's a real difference, and it's good that our institutions represent that. But when the executive tries to become a legislative body, as happens with Trump, with his executive degrees, well, that's not good. Do you believe our institutions are strong enough to push back against an executive trying to, you know, take on legislative functions? They are strong enough to push back, but they aren't pushing back enough right now. And so I think that Republicans in Congress need to stiffen their spines a little.

The Supreme Court has not yet been tested, and it probably will, I think, provide some kind of reversal of Trump's unconstitutional. or anti-constitutional initiatives. You know, I wonder if you had the power to amend the Constitution without having to go through the process, is there anything that you would change in our Constitution? If Harvey Mansfield has a power with just the say to change it? No, I wouldn't. I certainly wouldn't change the provision of the Constitution for amendments.

There shouldn't be any amendments without it's being done constitutionally. While I have you on here, Professor, I have three children of my own, very young, two, four, and six. Are there any three books that you would recommend that they read before they go to college, whether it's Harvard or anywhere else? Are there books that you hope that students that you had teaching

came in with knowing? And are there then, as a corollary, three books that you believe every college student, every college should make sure that their students read before they leave? A very American book, Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain, parts of the Bible, parts of a book that I translated by Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America. I say parts of, because some of it's a little difficult for someone who's still in high school. But the first two, Tom Sawyer in the Bible or not.

By the way, if you read Tom Sawyer, you see he's not a total friend to the Bible. So I think that's a good way to induce you to think, see a call. And then as a college student, are there three books that you think every university student should leave college having read? Plato's Republic, that's perhaps the best book that's been written on the most central topic of justice. and how our thinking can go together with our non-thinking,

our inability to think or the limitations on our thinking. You can read the rest of Talkville's Democracy in America. That would be good. And if you want to know about our Constitution and to understand it better, Read the Federalist. You have been very pro-Israel.

I wonder, have you ever visited Israel and what have your impressions been? And just generally, why is it important to be pro-Israel? What makes you pro-Israel? I've never visited Israel, admired it from a distance. Right now, it's a Marshall Republic, and together with Ukraine, these are the two most, you can say the two most successful republics inaction. And by inaction, I mean a republic defending itself against an enemy. And the two of them are carrying on an exhibition of lovers of liberty

who are fighting to defend their liberty. So I think we should be very admiring of both those, both of them. And Israel is, again, a successful republic, full of diversity, disagreement, factions, and so on. But united when it comes to the biggest issue of life for death. so it's an example to the rest of us in liberal democracies of how to live under pressure and then I would put the Ukraine with it the two of them and finally professor you have taught so many students during your career many of whom

have been guest on my podcast Alan Key this path was in my previous one from Alan Keyes to Crystal, to Hugh Hewitt, to my advisor in college, Jeremy Rapkin. My question to you is, is there a characteristic of a student? I mean, you've seen obviously very smart students go through your doors. Some have achieved, you know, super heights, the highest you can almost achieve in this country, and some, not so much. Are there characteristics of those students who do achieve the highest levels that you've noticed that is common?

Well, you mentioned only males. there are a lot of women who I've taught. In fact, at the end of my teaching career, most of my PhD students were very intelligent women. So, yeah, intelligence, a certain disagreement with accepted opinion, a desire to read and to master Plato's Republic. I've never been an extremely popular teacher. I once had a class with 200 students,

but usually I'm as much smaller, 30, 40, 50. That's where I am. I do meet in later life a lot of people who tell me, I wish I had taken your course. That shows you where I am. It takes a certain courage to take a course where you might not get an A. That's something of more of my great causes as a professor. I'm against great inflation.

And so that necessarily has a certain effect on a number of people who take your course. But they were always fairly hard courses. So it was, people were willing to test themselves on that account. And I'm writing a book which consists of the lectures in one of my courses, so I'll be coming out later this year's, this year called The History of Modern Political Philosophy. So you can take that course by reading that book. Professor, we look forward to having you on again when that book comes out. And thank you again for joining the Dispatch podcast.

My pleasure. Thanks to you. You know what I'm going to be. Thank you.