Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Last year marked an inflection point in how our federal government interacts with institutions of higher education. The Donald Trump administration weaponized research grants to coerce universities to conform to its political agenda.

The policies the Trump administration sought to influence were responses to diversity, equity and inclusion programs and perceived antisemitism. This extortion was most visible with respect to federal research funding at Harvard University and Columbia University, but also included investigations of other universities, such as Brown University, Cornell University, Northwestern University and the University of Michigan.

Just a few days ago, the Department of Defense announced that starting with the 2026-27 academic year, it will discontinue graduate-level professional military education, fellowships and certificate programs at Harvard and is evaluating similar programs at other “woke” universities.

President Trump is now demanding that Harvard pay $1 billion to end its standoff with his administration. Piling on, the United States Dept. of Justice’s Civil Rights Division just initiated a lawsuit against Harvard seeking applicant-level admissions data it claims to need for its investigation of the school’s compliance with federal civil rights laws.

Some may argue that past presidential administrations also threatened to cut off research or other federal funding to universities. Most notably, the Johnson and Carter administrations threatened the cessation of funding to force compliance with desegregation court orders and civil rights laws, including prohibitions on sex-based discrimination.

This time is different. The Trump administration has openly conditioned funding on institutional ideology and internal governance choices, such as whether DEI offices could exist.

Columbia caved to this pressure, reaching a settlement to pay roughly $200 million, revise or end certain DEI practices and accept outside compliance monitoring to restore most funding. In contrast, Harvard and its faculty sued the Trump administration and won an important victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where it’s currently pending. My personal preference is the Harvard approach.

Last spring, hundreds of university and college presidents and other educational leaders responded to the unprecedented overreach and political interference by the Trump administration. The signatory universities issued “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” expressing their openness to constructive reform and acquiescence to legitimate government oversight.

At the same time, they opposed undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live and work on their campuses. They also expressed a willingness to pursue effective and fair financial practices while rejecting the coercive use of public research funding.

I’m an alum of Syracuse University, having graduated before most students reading this were born. I was a proud SU donor until last spring, when Chancellor Kent Syverud and the SU administration declined to sign on to the Call.

Between April 27 and Dec. 3, 2025, I sent five emails to Chancellor Syverud seeking to learn why SU hadn’t signed onto the Call and urging him to do so. In November, knowing I would be on campus, I requested a brief meeting in his office. On Dec. 3, I called his office and left a message with his representative regarding my request. After receiving no response, I called again on Dec. 8 and left a detailed voice message stating I would be on campus on Dec. 12.

Finally, on Dec. 10, I received an email from Tracy Barlok, SU’s senior vice president and chief advancement officer, who agreed to meet with me.

I met with Ms. Barlok at the Schine Student Center. She was very nice and generous with her time, but she was extremely vague when I asked why SU hadn’t signed on to the Call. Essentially, she said the university was trying to stay under the radar on this issue, an explanation she acknowledged wouldn’t satisfy me, and she was right.

I requested that she report back to Chancellor Syverud that I disagreed strongly with SU’s decision. I told her SU’s silence was akin to what most German citizens and organizations did in the early 1930s, when far too few people stood up as the Nazis consolidated power. History offers examples of the harm enabled by institutional silence, a pattern that appears to be occurring in the U.S today.

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Dean David Van Slyke recently wrote to alumni that the school will continue defending faculty academic freedom and protecting student speech. Let’s see SU turn those lofty promises into action. I want my alma mater to stand for truth, knowledge and justice. Suos Cultores Scientia Coronat.

To date, I haven’t received any communication from Chancellor Syverud. In recent years, I had been considering making a substantial monetary gift to SU and had been working with the Maxwell School’s development team on this. As a result of this lack of communication and transparency, I have decided to end my financial support to SU. Decisions have consequences.

Chancellor Syverud will be departing SU to become president of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Ironically, U-M is one of the many signatories of the Call. Go Blue! Let’s hope he doesn’t bring with him the timidity he exhibited at SU.

David P. Frankel
Class of 1977
Washington, D.C.

The university did not respond to The Daily Orange’s request for comment on its decision not to sign “A Call for Constructive Engagement.”

This letter was submitted by David Frankel, Class of 1977. He can be reached at slovakdc@gmail.com

Published on February 16, 2026 at 8:36 pm