Which of the following parties do you more strongly support in their current dispute?

The Trump administration (27%) – "I very much agree with the Trump administration's directives for a couple of reasons. First: Universities have ceased to be a place where students can go to actually learn multiple perspectives, make decisions for themselves on how they see and interact with the world around them, and graduate with a truly useful new set of skills, including critical thinking. The hiring and admissions practices have been flawed for years and there is a lack of 'thought diversity' across the board. Second: The federal government isn't an unlimited ATM for the entitled; if they want to establish and enforce boundaries on how universities conduct themselves while receiving MILLIONS of dollars every year in federal funding, it's well within the administration's right to do so. If the universities disagree, they're welcome to decline the funding and tap into their vast alumni base to try and make up the difference."

• "I agree 100% that hiring should be based on merit, not ethnicity or gender. I also agree that students should be accepted based on merit and not because they have the most money or because the school is trying to 'meet a quota'. I think money talks and the only way to get anyone to stand up and pay attention is to touch the pocket book."

"Colleges should not be promoting antisemitism or violence or any sort. Additionally, they should be places where differing (non liberal) opinions can be shared without retribution. And no one should be hired based on their gender, race, or religion. It should be about their qualifications. That is just common sense and provides fair opportunity for everyone. By not hiring someone because they don't check a box is inherently unjust."

Harvard University (65%) – "Although I believe some universities have been too extreme with the DEI focus, it is valuable to have diversity of thought based on lived and learned experiences in the academic setting. What the current administration is asking for is not an appropriate way to ensure this diversity of thought. When the current administration is not getting 'obedience', there is no conversation, but demands followed by blackmail. This process of fear and intimidation does not result in lasting change."

• "It's further examples of Trump forcing his ideology onto others and if they don't agree, then he punishes them. This behavior has been exhibited throughout the world's history from other dictators. There is no discussion or attempt to understand the other's perspective. It is simply, believe what I believe or face my wrath."

"The Trump administration believes that any and all criticism of Israel is inherently anti-semitic, despite the fact that multiple investigations by independent groups like the UN and Amnesty International have found that Israel has at a minimum violated international humanitarian law and may very well be committing genocide. When they say "address anti-semitism" what they really mean is "stop students from protesting Israel in any way, shape, or form." This is a blatant violation of students' First Amendment rights and Harvard is right to stand up to the administration. Additionally I find it incredibly ironic that the administration is simultaneously demanding that schools eliminate DEI programs and also submit to "viewpoint diversity" audits -- it seems that they want DEI when it benefits their own viewpoints, but not the viewpoints of marginalized groups."

• "These demands seem to be a gross form of government overreach. While typically leaning left, colleges are known for being a place of free thought, but the government is trying to stop that. They are also banning DEI programs, while encouraging hires that promote “diversity of thought.” So do they want diversity or not?"

"1) Supporting a Free Palestine and being against Israel's approach to this war is not inherently antisemitic 2) Protesting the war is not antisemitic, 3) Harvard showed plenty of evidence of the steps it took to combat anti-semitism 4) And even if none of this was true, it's certainly not the Executive Branch's purview 5) What ever happened to the GOP being the party of small governments and freedom? 6) Trump is definitely outside the bounds of the emergency power he is using to do these things 7) Allowing free and peaceful protests, free press on campus is democratic. Shutting down people and institutions because they disagree with you is distinctly undemocratic. 8) None of this has anything to do with the funding he is freezing, for things like, you know, cancer research... and can have cascading impacts to their affiliates which aren't even related to the antisemitism charges."

Unsure/other (8%) – "I have no love for America's system of higher education; cost keeps going up and the resulting debt can be crippling. I don't know where all that tuition money is going if they still need government support. It seems an obscene amount of money that they are receiving. However, for a party that screams from the rooftop that they want small government and they don't want the government interfering in their lives, conservatives seem pretty willing to step aside and watch this administration threaten private institutions if the message aligns with their beliefs."