Despite my distaste for Harvard University’s brand of progressive politics and disappointment in its leaders’ lack of respect for First Amendment values and intellectual diversity, I expected to disagree with the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw $2 billion in funding for the school and threat to remove its nonprofit status. When I started reporting for this column, I thought this was a direct threat to the First Amendment. That’s what the folks at The Wall Street Journal editorial page found. But I am not so sure anymore. After I talked to several lawyers, I found that the case for Trump’s approach is better than I thought. It all goes back to 1983 and an 8-1 Supreme Court decision called Bob Jones University v. the United States. Back then, the Christian university didn’t allow interracial dating, which it considered a violation of biblical values. The IRS decided that since the United States was firmly opposed to racial discrimination as “public policy,” the school should lose its nonprofit status. The Supremes overwhelmingly agreed. You might have noticed that 40 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard unconstitutionally discriminated by race in its admissions. Case closed, right? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander and all that. But if there is one rule about understanding Supreme Court decisions, it is “read the dissent.” Then-Chief Justice William Rhenquist wrote this one quoting some interesting language from the law establishing nonprofit status with roots in the George Washington Administration:

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/david-mastio/article304457596.html#storylink=cpy