Hey Karoline, didn’t you know? Harvard already erased its LGBTQ students
These days, if you happen to be a LGBTQ student at Harvard, good luck finding services. After Trump’s threats last spring, a once vibrant office BGLTQ+ office space that has served students since 2012 was shuttered.
All that’s left is vague promise of, “Additional Resources Coming Soon‘ on the university’s website.
That’s why Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s rebooting of Trump’s war against Harvard last Saturday, where, during an appearance on on Fox News, she bemoaned its “LGBTQ graduate majors,” seemed particularly ironic.
Her renewal of the administration’s ongoing war against “woke” at Harvard, along with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s weekend announcement that war fighters wouldn’t be allowed either, came in the wake of a fresh Trump missive demanding Harvard pony up a BILLION dollars. This came via a typically unhinged hissy-fit posted on Truth Social after the New York Times apparently hurt his feelings earlier in the week.
This latest flurry of “anti-woke” Harvard rhetoric is just one more chapter in Trump’s ongoing rabid war against higher ed that began last spring with Columbia. Sensing blood in the water, Trump moved on to demand similar fealty from a number of other universities including Harvard, but those efforts were quickly rebuffed.
In an April letter to the Harvard community President Alan M. Garber explained why the university chose to fight back :
Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world. We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion. That is how we achieve academic excellence, safeguard open inquiry and freedom of speech, and conduct pioneering research—and how we advance the boundless exploration that propels our nation and its people into a better future.
Backed by its 56 billion dollar endowment, Harvard immediately filed suit in federal court to block federal cuts and in September, a summary judgement in its favor was granted. In her decision Judge Allison D. Burroughs noted, among other things, that the Trump administration’s oft-used charge of antisemitism to justify its funding cuts was a red herring.
The idea that fighting antisemitism is Defendants’ true aim is belied by the fact that the majority of the demands they are making of Harvard to restore its research funding are directed, on their face, at Harvard’s governance, staffing and hiring practices, and admissions policies—all of which have little to do with antisemitism and everything to do with Defendants’ power and political views.
The First Amendment is important and the right to free speech must be zealously guarded. Free speech has always been a hallmark of our democracy.
…Now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.
Why were Harvard’s LGBTQ+ students erased?
So, fast-forward to the present day. While Karoline Leavitt grouses about Harvard LGBTQ “majors” to fuel Trump’s anti-Crimson tantrum reboot she apparently didn’t take notice of the fact that the university had already quietly abandoned its LGBTQ students last summer.
In order to fully appreciate what’s transpired, it’s useful to re-examine how the language President Garber used in his initial response to Trump’s threats was deftly crafted to seemingly defy Trump demands while simultaneously, and subtly, setting the stage for some serious capitulation.
We need to ensure that the University lives up to its ideals by taking concrete steps to reaffirm a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and academic exploration; making changes to our disciplinary systems so they will be more consistent and more effective in ensuring that our students, faculty, and staff take responsibility for their actions; implementing measures to ensure that all members of our community are safe and respected; and adopting important adjustments to the ways we build community—continuing to focus on individuals and their unique characteristics rather than their race. [emphasis added]
As part of this “working together,” process, Harvard administrators—unlike those at other targeted universities—determined that it would be acceptable to erase Harvard’s LGBTQ+ students from its website—and ultimately, its campus. How did this happen? Why did Harvard, in effect, bend the knee?
Last spring, while fighting funding cuts in court, Harvard also set to work to eliminate any obvious whiff of DEI on campus, replacing it with a potpourri of more benign offerings. The Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging was closed while a brand new Office for Community and Campus Life emerged from its ashes. The Harvard College Women’s Center and the Office for BGLTQ Student Life were also shuttered while The Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations morphed into something called The Harvard Foundation.
And, as a cherry on top, a new Office of Culture & Community was also established under auspices of the Dean of Students.
All this demolition, retooling and rebranding was a cop out. Rather than perform Kabuki theater, Harvard could have, should have—called the administration’s bluff and said no— DEI is actually a good, no, a great thing. Why not make the case that the concept of paying attention to diversity and inclusion is not about offering special treatment—but making sure talented people are NOT overlooked? The actual truth is that if you’re a person of color or female in our society, too often you have to be twice as talented to get half as far. That’s a fact.
Ironic, but in January of 2026 the Department of Education agreed to drop its demand that colleges and universities drop DEI programs after courts determined it violated the 1st amendment in August of 2025. Harvard could have resisted, but in weighing its options, it clearly chose the path of least resistance and folded quickly. As Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers said in a news release following the announcement:
When you fight you don’t always win, but you never win without a fight. We are proud that this case has once again halted the administration’s pattern of using executive fiat to undermine America’s laws that enshrine justice and opportunity for all.
I wonder how President Garber squares this circle, particularly in light of his impassioned defense of higher education offered in his first letter to the Harvard community last April.
Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world..
Of course, rather than lead the resistance against the absurd, culture war “anti-woke”cri de coeur wielded as a well-worn cudgel in Trump’s Project 2025 directed attacks on higher ed, Harvard’s wisest believed that dropping various offices into a blender to create a product palatable to those forces would be a winning strategy. Why not throw Trump a bone? Harvard’s leadership ignored the one sure thing that happens when dealing with Trump’s mob extortion tactics—If you give an inch, he’ll take a mile. As David Kirp noted in his piece in The Guardian.
Those who bend the knee rationalize their actions as simply a prudent survival strategy. But that’s delusory, for the historical record shows that anticipatory compliance paves the road to autocracy. Bullies like Trump always demand more from their supplicants – more money, more abandoning principles, more loyalty-oath behavior. Anticipatory compliance feeds the beast, showing authoritarians how much they can get away with.
This brings me back full circle to present day. When the habitually dishonest Karoline Leavitt appeared on Fox this weekend to attack Harvard, chirping the tired canard of LGBTQ wokeness on campus—she apparently didn’t realize that her boss had already succeeded in eliminating that particular threat?
Karoline, Harvard already took care of that pesky LGBTQ issue.
Leavitt overlooked the fact that Harvard’s sterilization protocol to eliminate any woke germs left on campus also required making sure LGBTQ undergraduates were given no shelter, no support. LGBTQ student services weren’t simply folded into the benign Crimson stew of updated offerings—they disappeared.
Meanwhile, back at the shiny new Office of Culture and Community there’s this cheery note:
Exposure to and learning from different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences leads to intellectual and personal growth, and the betterment of the University. We encourage the best to learn alongside one another, as they learn from one another. Everyone benefits when all are welcomed, supported, and included. [emphasis added]
It’s worth noting that the first groups featured on its website include Making Meaning (spiritual) and Military Affiliates. (Ironic that Pete Hegseth hadn’t noticed this dubious and transparent effort to cozy up to the military). Others highlighted include the First-Generation, Low-Income and the Harvard Foundation programs.
Not to discount the the 100 or so veterans and ROTC members on campus, nor those who are religious, but according to the Harvard Crimson’s Class of 2025 survey (the most recent I could find) the number of LGBTQ+ undegraduate students at Harvard is quite significant. Despite this—in the war against woke—LGBTQ+ undergrads aren’t worthy of mention—ignored both as a community and a culture.
Never mind that the college years are, for many, a hugely formative time in one’s life where support services can be especially crucial for vulnerable students. As someone who landed at Harvard as a freshman 50 years ago—feeling homesick, overwhelmed by classes and social expectations—while in the midst of a journey to embrace my identity as a lesbian—I cannot fathom how Harvard’s current administration thought it acceptable to dismantle such services, particularly at a time when identifying as a member of the LGBTQ community in America has become so fraught.
Looking around at various institutions around the nation, it’s not difficult any number of colleges and universities that offer support resources to their LGBTQ students. Unlike Harvard, rainbows on campus don’t seem to be a concern elsewhere.
Meanwhile, after much searching on Harvard’s website, the only vague hint of a LGBTQ presence on campus today—aside from archives—came via the sanitized replacement for Harvard’s Office for Gender Equity. (Somewhat off-topic and as an ironic aside I couldn’t resist posting— when I searched the term “lesbian” on Harvard’s website, this was the top result.🙄)
Ah, but I digress—back to my point. Since the term gender equity is also apparently now verboten at Harvard, the office that existed in January 2025 was replaced by one named CSNDR, the acronym for a generic and and non-threatening mouthful of a title, “Community Support, Non-Discrimination, Rights and Responsibilities.”
To appreciate the destruction (and dubious reconstruction) that’s taken place at Harvard, and how we got arrived here, it’s worth reviewing before and after snapshots from their website. The Wayback machine provides evidence of the before Trump vs the after.
CSNDR works with the Harvard community to foster an environment free from discrimination, interpersonal violence, and the impacts of such harm.
Before we move on to view the one, miniscule, and thereby dismissive mention of Havard LGBTQ+ undergraduate students that remains—for old time’s sake take, look back to January 20, 2025 on Harvard’s website when the Office of BGLTQ Student Life was alive and well.
As noted previously, now that safe space is no more—replaced by the aforementioned CSNDR and brief mention that’s barely a bookmark. For the record, a ghost version of the website still haunts the url: bgtlq.fas (dot) harvard.edu, but it’s inactive and unlisted. I first began monitoring this issue last October, and since then there have been no updates— as of today, February 9, 2026 all that’s remains of LGBTQ+ undergrad life on the Harvard campus is a “coming soon” notice.
So Karoline, your latest anti-woke missives directed at Harvard do seem a tad hyperbolic, no? And although Harvard is continuing its fight against funding cuts, the university clearly decided, as a token submission, to throw undergraduate LGBTQ students under the bus a few months ago. Perhaps next time, before lobbing dubious talking points on Fox News, White House staff should pay more attention to facts on the ground eh?
Meanwhile President Garber, what exactly did you mean when you wrote:
“Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives…”
What veritas is Harvard offering?
As for my perspectives on my alma mater, I’ll soon be publishing Part 2 of this piece recounting my aforementioned experiences as a young lesbian on campus at a time, 50 years ago, when LGBTQ life at Harvard was lived mostly on the down low, as an illustration as to why the changes that took place over subsequent decades really did matter. Hard to believe—but a half a century later—it seems those days may have returned. Stay tuned….
