Harvard University’s lawsuit against the federal government deserves the support of the nation’s higher education community. It rebuts Washington’s attempt, beginning last April, to use research funding to change academic governance and programs. The case should have 4,000 amicus briefs from America’s post-secondary schools.

After filing complaints against Harvard, the administration offered a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to other universities but excluded Harvard. It would confer preferred access to federal research funds in return for compliance with academic programming and institutional governance standards requirements set by Washington. Most higher ed institutions that were offered the compact have declined, citing concerns about academic freedom and free speech. All should do so.

The first step for any school seeking to join the fight is for campus presidents to review the compact’s requirements and the allegations against Harvard, and to discuss the legal and procedural concerns with their boards of trustees and faculties. Filing an amicus brief would not violate institutional neutrality policies. It is not a political statement but a legal tool to protect higher education, permissible under the “Chicago Principles,” which defend free speech and academic freedom.

Every institution benefits from the protections afforded by the 1957 Supreme Court decision in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, in which Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote: “It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment, and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail ‘the four essential freedoms’ of a university—to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”

Frankfurter’s formulation has underpinned institutional autonomy and academic freedom for almost seven decades. However, in recent years, state governments have challenged these principles by eliminating academic programs from curricula, mandating how American history is taught, and banning initiatives to promote tolerance and respect for students’ diverse backgrounds.

The federal government claimed in April, with scant evidence, that Harvard did not sufficiently protect Jewish and Israeli students, faculty, and staff from antisemitism. As a result, it has frozen billions of dollars in research grants and demanded changes to Harvard’s governance, hiring, and admissions policies to ensure “viewpoint diversity” in curricula and campus programs. Washington would compel compliance by auditing the viewpoints of those on campus.

Following Harvard’s rejection of these demands in June, Donald Trump’s administration said it would halt further funding and added that it was considering revoking the university’s tax-exempt status and denying entry to international students and scholars.

Harvard’s lawsuit claims the funding freezes breach the federal government’s own policies and procedures. Replying to the government’s demands, Harvard President Alan Garber said, “The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting. Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.” Harvard has also declared that it will not negotiate either its independence or its constitutional rights.

Others have joined Harvard’s fight to preserve Sweezy. Civil liberties groups, attorneys general from 20 states, more than 12,000 Harvard alumni, and at least two dozen universities have filed amicus briefs.

All 4,000-plus nonprofit colleges and universities in the U.S. have an interest in this case. Penny Pritzker, senior fellow of the Harvard Corporation, said in her letter to alumni, “… we join in thanking all of you as well for the countless ways you advance and support not only Harvard but the entire enterprise of higher education when such efforts (by the government) are as consequential as they have never been.”

The stakes are high. This is not just about research funding. It is a challenge to every campus, two-year, four-year, church-related, historically Black, rural, residential, conservative, liberal, focused on the arts and sciences, or not. If the case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, as it might, will we see Sweezy overruled as we did in overturning Roe v. Wade?

More amicus briefs will underscore that higher education is a community with shared values, not just a competitive enterprise.

Too often, educators view institutional autonomy as an independent benefit. It is not. Just as each campus forms a community, higher education comprises a community of institutions. Whether a campus has a billion-dollar endowment or a modest one, all higher education institutions depend on crucial freedoms articulated decades ago, which remain vital and deserve our continued support amid today’s threats.