In his telling, his alma mater had devolved into a bastion of bigotry that public money should not underwrite. He said the admin could choose, if it wished, to direct its largess toward other institutions. The case, he argued, was more about money for #Harvard than any profound matters like #FreeSpeech.

Judge Burroughs suggested that Harvard might very well not be such a titan of American academia if the #Trump admin’s cuts stand.

Velchik, himself a #Harvard alumnus, scrambled on Monday to argue that the government was not seeking to decapitate Harvard. Naming a handful of luminaries who had studied at Harvard — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., President John F. Kennedy and even the actor Matt Damon — he insisted that the government was seeking to strengthen and reshape an important American institution that had lost its way.

“What I’m wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,” she said, and then make “these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.”

She also appeared dismissive of the government’s contention that a different court, one dealing with financial disputes, should be hearing the case instead of her own.

#Harvard, he said, “should have read the fine print.”

Harvard has sharply disputed the idea that it condones discrimination. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, told Judge Burroughs on Monday that the #Trump admin’s quest to punish Harvard was a “blatant, unrepentant violation of the #FirstAmendment.”

He added, “It’s the constitutional third rail, or it should be, for the government to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination.”