Unfortunately, the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and Harvard University enjoys its own life.

I say unfortunately, not because I believe the reforms President Donald Trump demands are entirely boundary - they are by no means.

Instead, I say that because, as a Harvard undergraduate and law school alumni, as well as a long-time donor--the rampant anti-Semitism on campus and the attitude of the university, I can’t blame the White House for performing.

Now, the State Council reviews all visa holders related to Harvard

Indeed, there is a reasonable argument that must be corrected by Harvard.

That being said, Harvard’s focus with other universities is unique. These concerns include the treatment of anti-Semitism, the silence of voices that do not conform to remote orthodoxism, and the silence of the people they employ.

It is worth noting that after Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, Harvard's attention did not stem from its handling of anti-Semitism.

It has long been the center of U.S. diversity, education, and inclusion (DEI) efforts that the Supreme Court was forced to drop unfair admission standards for Asian students in June 2023.

However, in the past month, two serious incidents have stressed that Harvard must also reform and redeem itself. First, Harvard Law Review awarded Ibraham Bharmal a $65,000 grant after Harvard Law School students were accused of assaulting Israeli students.

In fact, Harvard not only tolerated Balmal’s anti-Semitism, but after taxpayer-funded grants, he was rewarded with taxpayer-funded grants simply after his nationality and Jewish identity.

Second, Harvard recently revoked the tenure of Francesca Gino, a professor of business administration professor - ironically, he was known for being honest as honesty as he pointed out - in a long struggle for Gino repeatedly forged data.

To be clear, this is not to say that I agree with every action Trump has taken against Harvard.

For example, accepting blanket bans from foreign students is too much, but censoring their social media is justified.

Colleges usually do this for American students; therefore, this is because Harvard should have the same (or even stricter) policies for foreigners. To do this, Harvard professor Steven Pinker recently published an article in The New York Times that did a great job capturing problems Harvard had to solve, and it was the best way to do it.

Pinker is frustrated by the school’s frustration with anti-Semitism, freedom of speech, hiring practices, and a clearer focus: Harvard has “severe illness,” but also has to calibrate the response.

In other words, while Harvard should not receive billions of dollars in taxpayer funds without restriction, there is a real risk of a total reduction in scientific strength that endangers the United States without generating - very necessary - the reforms Trump demanded.

There are plenty of opportunities to take a more targeted approach that can force Harvard to make these necessary changes without undermining the school’s leadership in many important areas.

For example, grants to social sciences can be cancelled without touching funding for medical or scientific research for cancer or other diseases.

Although I agree with Pinker and other points he made, the most important thing he pointed out is that the only thing that prompted Harvard to take any change step was Trump.

Click here for more Fox News comments

As Pinker said, “The unsettling fact is that many reforms follow after Mr. Trump’s inauguration and overlap with his request.”

Of course, the US president should not integrate American universities with his own code of conduct.

The White House power should not force Harvard to suppress the scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-American extremism, which has surpassed the campus.

Click here to get the Fox News app

However, this is where we find ourselves now.

I hope as an alum, as an American, the Trump administration and Harvard University have come up with a solution that makes universities realize that it cannot continue to allow or reward, that these students are so blatantly violating the university or the U.S. code of conduct.