Under Trump, Institutional Neutrality Cannot Mean Institutional Inaction

In the wake of President Trump’s re-election, it is time for Harvard to take a long, hard look at institutional neutrality.

After the University’s controversial response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, the policy was a worthwhile corrective. But now, as the president-elect has declared his intention to “disband” the Department of Education, conduct mass deportations, and roll back protections for transgender students, Harvard cannot afford to stay silent until something terrible happens.

The University must clarify — explicitly — that institutional neutrality will not equate to institutional inaction in the face of policy harmful to Harvard’s academic mission or community members.

We have already seen signs from President-elect Trump’s staff choices indicating that students on our campus will be impacted. Just days after the election, Trump stated his intention to appoint Tom D. Homan — a Project 2025 contributor, defender of family separations, and supporter of workplace immigration raids — as the so-called “border czar.”

While past administrations have deemed some “sensitive” locations — places of worship, universities, public gatherings — as off-limits for immigration enforcement, the Trump Administration has shown a lack of regard for this precedent.

Undocumented students in Harvard’s classrooms could be next. So rather than wait for the incoming administration to target members of our community who lack legal status, Harvard should clarify now that it will protect them using all of its vast resources.

Likewise, the President-elect has made clear his intent to target the rights of transgender students. He ran on the idea of directing the Food and Drug Administration to study whether gender-affirming care increases the risk of mental health conditions, violence, and aggression. If the federal government takes steps that endanger the rights of transgender students at Harvard, our institution must be ready to fight back.

Finally, Harvard can’t achieve its mission if it can’t pay for it. President Trump plans to create an online “American Academy” to compete with existing colleges, funded by taxing “excessively large private university endowments.” With expected full Republican control of Congress and a lack of political appetite among Democrats to support the Ivy League, this proposal has a real chance of becoming law.

Now, I have no doubt that the University will vocally oppose this endowment tax. If there is anything I've learned over the past year, Harvard will always defend its financial interests. But, the University should take a clear and direct approach on any public policy impacting the ability of students and researchers to operate safely and autonomously.

Whether it is attacks on gender-affirming care, threats towards undocumented members of our community, or attempts to cut federal funding for schools deemed to teach “critical race theory,” our University will face threats to its core function in the next four years. Its response can’t just be to keep quiet.

Don’t get me wrong — institutional neutrality has its perks. It is much easier to stay silent than to speak up. But University administrators cannot hide behind the policy when the future of higher education is at stake.

Harvard’s leaders have stated that the University will not issue statements on matters that do not directly impact its operation. But with so many issues that will directly — and indirectly — impact students on our campus, it is important for Harvard to clarify that it understands the scale of the threat to its mission — and will not stand idly by.

Harvard has spoken up many times before. When President Trump tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2017, University administrators defended the program and wrote letters to both the president and members of Congress to promote its preservation. When the Trump administration seemingly used the Covid-19 pandemic as a guise to revoke the visas of international students, Harvard filed a federal lawsuit and publicly decried the policy.

In order to maintain its status as a leader, Harvard cannot abdicate its responsibility to call out attacks on our institution and higher education as a whole.

My message to our University leaders: Use the power of neutrality accordingly, but do not allow it to justify your inaction in the face of injustice.

M. Austen Wyche ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is an Economics concentrator in Winthrop House.