Foxx Calls Harvard Congressional Submission ‘Woefully Inadequate,’ Raises Threat of Subpoena

Updated: January 25, 2024, at 12:57 p.m.

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, called Harvard’s submission to the committee’s antisemitism investigation on Tuesday “woefully inadequate,” raising the prospect that the University could soon face a congressional subpoena.

Harvard faced deadlines this week to submit extensive internal communications in response to two congressional inquiries from the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the House Ways and Means Committee. The committees, both controlled by Republicans, requested the University respond to their deadlines by Tuesday and Wednesday respectively.

“Rather than answering the Committee’s request in a substantive manner, Harvard has chosen to provide letters from nonprofits and student handbooks, many of which are already publicly available,” Foxx wrote. “This is unacceptable.”

“Harvard must produce the remaining documents in a timely manner, or risk compulsory measures,” Foxx wrote.

The committee initially requested a slew of both formal documents and informal communications in a Jan. 9 letter to the Harvard Corporation — the University’s highest governing body — and interim Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76. The list included text messages between Corporation members and meeting notes from the last three years.

It is now increasingly likely that Foxx will still try to obtain those documents and internal communications by issuing a congressional subpoena.

“The committee is prepared to subpoena Harvard,” said Nick Barley, a spokesperson for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The committee launched its investigation into Harvard just days after former President Claudine Gay’s damaging testimony before the committee in early December. Foxx wrote in her Jan. 9 letter that concerns over antisemitism “extend well beyond one leader.” The investigation implicates multiple members of Harvard’s administration, the Harvard Management Company, and the University’s governing boards.

In previous letters to University leadership, Foxx warned that Harvard’s accreditation and federal funding could be in jeopardy.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton declined to comment on what documents were submitted on Tuesday, but said the University intends “to continue to engage with the Committee in a dialogue to respond to their ongoing requests.”

“Harvard is committed to cooperating with the Committee’s inquiry and providing information, including the submission made today, which addresses important questions raised by the Committee,” Newton wrote.

Stanley M. Brand, an attorney who has represented congressional witnesses for almost 50 years, said the committee would have to hold Harvard in contempt of Congress in order to mandate them to produce the full set of requested material.

“They can huff and puff and say, ‘we’re going to hold you in contempt,’ but that takes months, if not years to bring to fruition,” said Brand, who previously served as general counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“There are serious First Amendment issues here that the committee is going to have to overcome in demonstrating that what they have asked for is pertinent to the subject matter of their investigation,” Brand added.

The Ways and Means Committee initially requested Harvard and three other universities submit information on speech guidelines, statement policies, and funding for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs by Wednesday.

A committee spokesperson said Thursday that the University requested an extension to provide the requested documents, which the committee granted. According to Brand, committee deadlines are unenforceable and extensions are common practice.

The committee’s Jan. 10 letter, signed by Chairman Rep. Jason T. Smith (R-Mo.), suggested Harvard’s tax-exempt status could be in jeopardy.

Facing protracted congressional scrutiny, Harvard has also hired King & Spalding to provide counsel on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s investigation, according to a person familiar with the firm’s involvement.

WilmerHale, another high powered law firm, previously advised the University on the probes, a role it will continue to play. WilmerHale and former Senior Fellow William F. Lee ’72, a lawyer at the firm, took a lead role in preparing Gay ahead of her December testimony.

University spokesperson Jonathan L. Swain declined to comment on Harvard’s relationship with King & Spalding. A representative for the law firm did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Harvard submitted documents to the committee last week regarding its investigation into the University’s handling of plagiarism allegations against Gay.

In the submission, it was revealed that the Corporation retained WilmerHale in response to the plagiarism allegations. The firm’s involvement could complicate their ability to represent Harvard if WilmerHale lawyers are called to testify as part of the committee’s investigation.

Policies on the scope of attorney-client privilege vary across congressional committees, Brand said.

“In the Congress, it’s a slightly different ballgame when witnesses assert attorney-client privilege because certain committees have asserted that the attorney-client privilege doesn’t apply to Congress,” Brand said.

—Staff writer Emma H. Haidar can be reached at emma.haidar@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @HaidarEmma.

—Staff writer Cam E. Kettles can be reached at cam.kettles@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cam_kettles or on Threads @camkettles.