Trump rips Harvard for hiring ‘Leftist dope’ Bill de Blasio as Ivy League refuses antisemitism, diversity demands

New York Post - Apr 16th, 2025

President Trump has criticized Harvard University for appointing former mayors Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot as lecturers, calling them 'Leftist dopes.' Trump argues that Harvard's decision to hire these former mayors, whom he deems among the worst in U.S. history, reflects poorly on the institution's reputation. He claims that Harvard's hiring practices are indicative of a broader trend of employing 'woke, Radical Left, idiots' and suggests that the university should be stripped of federal funding. This attack aligns with the recent federal decision to freeze over $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard after the university refused to comply with the administration's demands regarding campus policies on antisemitism and diversity.

The broader context of this story reveals an escalating tension between the Trump administration and Harvard University. The federal government recently froze significant funding to Harvard following the institution's defiance of demands to alter its student discipline, admissions, and diversity policies. Harvard President Alan Garber responded by asserting the university's commitment to maintaining its independence and constitutional rights, refusing to allow the government to dictate its academic and hiring decisions. This clash highlights ongoing debates about academic freedom, political influence in education, and the autonomy of private institutions in the face of federal intervention.

Donald Trump Diversity Policies Lori Lightfoot Harvard University Political Influence Bill De Blasio Academic Freedom Federal Funding Freeze Antisemitism Policies

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and engaging account of President Trump's criticisms of Harvard University, focusing on its hiring decisions and the subsequent federal funding freeze. It accurately presents Trump's statements and the broader context of the controversy. However, the article lacks balance and depth, as it primarily focuses on one perspective without offering sufficient counterarguments or diverse viewpoints. The reliance on a limited range of sources and the lack of transparency in certain claims detract from its overall reliability. Despite these weaknesses, the article effectively captures attention and addresses issues of public interest, making it relevant and impactful in the current news landscape.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports that Harvard hired Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot as lecturers, which is supported by factual evidence. Trump's criticism of Harvard, calling it a 'joke' and suggesting it should lose federal funding, is also accurately reflected in the article. The claim about the federal government freezing over $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard is true, as is Harvard's refusal to comply with the Trump administration's demands regarding antisemitism and other reforms. However, the article's claim about the 'ridiculously high salaries/fees' lacks specific evidence or verification, making this aspect less precise.

Balance

The article primarily presents President Trump's perspective, focusing on his criticism of Harvard and its hiring decisions. It lacks a balanced representation of viewpoints, particularly from Harvard or the individuals criticized, such as Bill de Blasio and Lori Lightfoot. While it mentions Harvard President Alan Garber's response, it does not delve into counterarguments or the rationale behind Harvard's hiring decisions, which could provide a more balanced view.

Clarity

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, with a logical flow of information. It effectively communicates President Trump's criticisms and the context of the federal funding freeze. However, the tone is somewhat sensational, particularly in the use of phrases like 'Leftist dopes' and 'Radical Left fools,' which may affect the perceived neutrality of the piece. Despite this, the main points are presented in a way that is easy to understand.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on statements from President Trump, which are publicly available and verifiable. However, it does not cite a wide range of sources or provide direct quotes from Harvard officials or the individuals involved. The lack of diverse sources limits the article's depth and reliability, as it primarily presents one side of the story without corroborating evidence or alternative perspectives.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of explaining the basis for some of its claims, such as the 'ridiculously high salaries/fees' for the lecturers. It does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or the methodology used to gather information. The article would benefit from greater transparency in how it obtained and verified its information, particularly regarding the financial aspects and the broader context of the hiring decisions.