Harvard's championing of the rule of law rings hollow given the college's unlawful race-based admissions policy.

Isn’t it interesting, or at least ironic, that elite universities and their professors are complaining that the Trump administration shows insufficient regard for the rule of law? For example, Peter Berkowitz informs us that 96 members of the Harvard Law School faculty (active or emeritus) have signed a letter claiming that “American legal precepts and the institutions designed to uphold them are being severely tested” by “government lawyers.”

Their concern is not without basis. However, as Berkowitz points out, some of Harvard’s law professors have long shown contempt “for American legal precepts and the institutions designed to uphold them.”

For decades, Harvard Law School has served as a premier platform for a variety of fashionable perspectives including critical legal studies, critical race theory, identity politics, and woke progressivism. In one way or another, all attack the rule of law’s claim to stand above politics. Some cutting-edge professors at HLS insist that in practice the rule of law is a fraud perpetrated by the powerful, a tool by which oppressors justify their power and lull the oppressed to accept their subordination.

That’s not all. Harvard itself has shown contempt for the rule of law. Liberals fear (again, not without basis) that Donald Trump will violate rulings by the Supreme Court, But Harvard has already done so. It has violated the Court’s ruling that it cannot use race-based preferences in admissions.

That ruling came in a case where Asian-Americans complained that Harvard discriminated against them by using preferences that favor blacks and Hispanics. The Supreme Court agreed.

How did Harvard respond? By increasing Hispanic representation in its next entering class and keeping Asian-American representation constant. Black representation decreased slightly, but remained at a level that could not exist absent a significant preference for members of that race.

This was an unmistakable finger in the Supreme Court’s eye — one that might make even Donald Trump blush (though probably not).

Speaking of Trump, his administration is coming down hard on Harvard, denying it billions in federal funds. Stanley Kurtz, citing Alan Dershowitz, says a negotiated settlement might be in the offing. And he presents a way in which Harvard could settle the case to the Trump administration’s satisfaction and perhaps, given the consequences of no settlement, to Harvard’s.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Trump should negotiate with Harvard until it demonstrates compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision on race-based admissions. If Harvard won’t obey the Supreme Court, we can have no confidence that it will adhere, over time, to the terms of any settlement it agrees to under duress.

But let’s put this objection aside and consider Stanley’s propose approach to resolving the main sticking point in the dispute between Harvard and the Trump administration — the college’s ideologically-based instruction.

Stanley proposes that Harvard establish an independent School of General Education, with a governing dean and a newly recruited faculty committed to a traditional “great books” approach. Given the nature of the school, the faculty would proportionately include more conservatives than are typical in academia, yet the scholars wouldn’t be of a single political stripe. As Stanley says, “there are still plenty of old-fashioned liberals who believe in a great books approach.”

This new school within the college would teach a set of great books and Western Civ–focused courses required of every student at the university. This would mean that with a relatively limited number of new academic appointments, every student would be exposed to a few classic-style courses taught by teachers committed to traditionalist methods. In addition, the independence of the School of General Education would mean that its hiring and governance could not be undermined by hostile faculty or departments.

Would Harvard consent to establishing an independent traditionalist school within the college, even under the pressure Trump is applying? I don’t know. If it did agree, would Harvard really follow through and provide an educational alternative to Harvard’s monolithic intellectual orthodoxy — one that would survive when the Democrats return to power ? Color me skeptical.

As I said, though, Trump shouldn’t enter into any settlement with Harvard until it complies with the Supreme Court’s decision on race-based preferences. I can sympathize with Harvard’s desire not to have the Trump administration dictate what it teaches its students. I have no sympathy with its desire to violate the law by discriminating on the basis of race in the selection of its students.