Harvard Is Too Elite, but Trump’s Culture War Won’t Change That

Since entering office last month, Trump has prepared to abolish the Department of Education, attempted to slash federal research funding, and targeted DEI initiatives and other race-conscious practices at universities.

Higher education is under attack. The rallying cry? That universities, especially prestigious ones like Harvard, must be recaptured from the woefully out-of-touch “woke elite.”

It’s a convenient narrative — and not entirely devoid of truth — but we must recognize this rhetoric for what it is: a duplicitous and self-serving attempt by conservative elites to exert political control over cultural centers where they have long lacked influence.

I’ll be the first to admit that Harvard, like many of its peer institutions, caters to the liberal elite. Only 13 percent of last year’s graduating class identified as conservative according to a Crimson survey. And though Harvard is notoriously tight-lipped about its socioeconomic demographics, an analysis from Harvard Economics professor Raj Chetty ’00 found that 67 percent of undergraduates come from families in the top twenty percent of the income distribution, while only less than five percent come from the bottom 20.

This socioeconomic skew concerns me, the ideological skew less so. Universities have long been homes for progressive thought, and it’s worth noting that a liberal slant doesn’t necessitate liberal bias. After all, Harvard has taken no shortage of action to ensure that conservative ideas are heard and diverse viewpoints thrive on campus. Indeed, in my own time here, I’ve had an abundance of opportunities to engage with peers from across the political spectrum.

But regardless of how much the rest of us prioritize socioeconomic or ideological diversity, the Trump administration’s haphazard and wildly misguided policies make clear that they don’t care about either one.

Take Trump’s order to cap funding for indirect costs tied to research projects — though he’s marketed it as a campaign against elite institutions, the order deals a huge blow to universities across the board, including those in red states.

Or consider the administration’s recent Dear Colleague letter declaring race-conscious decision-making illegal. The only problem? Many of the programs that the letter explicitly targets — like admissions and financial aid — already don’t make decisions based on race.

Whether institutional DEI programs actually further the worthy goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion, or if universities employ them simply for PR purposes, certainly remains an open question.

But we could discuss DEI until the cows go home, and we’d still be missing the most important point — that for the large majority of Americans, who don’t attend elite universities, whether Harvard has DEI programming makes no difference in their material lives.

And this is precisely why the rhetoric around Trump’s attacks is so concerning. If he was truly interested in reforming universities to serve the public good, he would implement policies that actually increase access to higher education for the many Americans for whom college tuition costs are a huge burden.

But instead, he’s cutting research funding and striking down DEI programs in an obvious ploy to score points with his base and exert political control over universities.

It’s the very same reason that Trump spent millions on anti-transgender advertisements during his campaign and signed multiple executive orders directly targeting transgender people during his first month in office despite the fact that transgender people represent a tiny proportion of the population and transgender issues were one of voters’ lowest priorities during the election.

Trump wants us to believe that he is wielding an “unprecedented and powerful mandate” to serve the best interests of the American people. But he won the popular vote by a margin of about 1.5 percent. That’s hardly a landslide — let alone a mandate for his war on liberal institutions.

And yet, so far, Harvard has publicly acquiesced, apparently deciding that quiet compliance is its best strategy. In response to the National Institutes of Health cap on funding for research projects, Harvard neglected to join 13 other universities in their lawsuit to stop it. This approach is a far cry from the one Harvard took four years ago, suing the Trump administration over federal guidelines that barred international students from attending universities online during the pandemic.

There is a case to be made for higher education, and Harvard ought to stand up and make it. I won’t pretend that it will be easy. But perhaps the best way to start is by doing what Trump cannot.

We could implement socioeconomic affirmative action and end legacy admissions. We could fund more public service programs and open access educational tools. We could develop partnerships with public universities and community colleges across the country, especially in conservative states.

Harvard’s critics aren’t wrong that we’re too elite. But they’re wrong about the solution.

We can’t just replace a liberal elite with a conservative one.

E. Matteo Diaz ’27, an Associate Editorial editor and Crimson Diversity and Inclusivity Chair, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Applied Mathematics in Leverett House.