In the Trump administration, however, scorched earth warfare has replaced the idea that punishment should fit the crime.

Accusing Harvard University of tolerating antisemitism, the administration has frozen or terminated billions in research funding, launched at least eight intrusive investigations, threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status and terminated its ability to enroll international students. While inflicting enormous damage, these sanctions are not tied to any discernible gain.

Harvard has sued the government, and its legal case is strong. A judge recently issued a temporary restraining order securing its right to enroll international students. But even if Harvard prevails in the courts, the cost will be exorbitant. And Harvard is just one of many universities under attack.

People of good will can differ about whether Harvard and its peer universities have met their legal obligations to Jewish students. But, by any standard, the Trump administration’s response has been grotesquely disproportionate.

Proportionality analysis in law takes different forms. Common elements intended to constrain excessive government actions include such concepts as “legitimate goal” — as in, government sanctions should be designed to further a legitimate goal, with a rational connection between the sanction and that goal. Another is “necessity,” meaning sanctions should be necessary to achieve the goal and the least restrictive means available. A third is “undue burden,” meaning that penalties should be commensurate with the moral culpability of the person or institution sanctioned and should not cause society more harm than good.