Harvard Must Defy Trump

In the first month of the Trump presidency, we have seen a slew of executive orders that not only threaten the academic mission of universities by targeting key funding sources, but also target marginalized students who call Harvard and other universities home.

These attacks are only the beginning. I agree with the calls for the University to take more action to defend itself and its students from actions taken by the Trump administration and reconsider its strategy of “preemptive compliance” — which has so far done nothing to slow down the attacks on transgender Americans we have seen day after day. Yet this approach can only do so much.

Harvard must go further — if it is to be an institution responsible to the needs of the nation, the University must be willing to risk its federal funding under the Trump administration.

Ordinarily, the federal government’s threats to withhold funds are quite compelling. It is understandable that universities do not want to risk losing money that allows them to carry out central parts of their mission to serve as institutions devoted to research and teaching.

Harvard, however, is in a unique position. While its gargantuan endowment does not mean it can survive without federal funding indefinitely, this wealth does mean our University can temporarily sacrifice funding for the sake of its values.

As I have previously argued, this election gave anti-intellectualism a new popular mandate. Harvard must continue to reckon with what President Donald Trump's victory means for itself and other universities; it must work to justify itself to a skeptical public. Justification, however, does not entail capitulation to every part of the MAGA agenda.

Universities stand in a unique place; they are places set aside for free inquiry and truth-seeking apart from the will of the majority, at least in theory. While this mission is most clear in fields where results are particularly concrete — like the mapping of new neural connections — part of being a truth-seeking institution requires doing what is right, even when ethical action is unpopular.

To simply go along with popular demands would be to reject our mission to be politically independent. Instead, as a truth-seeking institution, Harvard must justify itself on the grounds of moral rectitude.

Right now, we are on a dangerous course. We see attacks on transgender and international students. Professors and administrators who promote equity efforts are denigrated as too “woke” and the important work that they do is being delegitimized.

During the first Trump administration, we saw efforts to ban transgender people from the military; this time, we are seeing attempts to restrict access to medical care. In 2017, Trump attempted to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program which allowed young adults who entered the US as undocumented children to remain in the country. While this first attempt failed, increasingly conservative courts filled with Trump-appointed judges mean there is no guarantee that it will fail again.

The issues are not always clear-cut. There are real questions about, for instance, how to go about creating fair and inclusive policies on the participation of transgender students in sports. However, when federal actions are plainly discriminatory, Harvard must not comply.

Indeed, if our University follows Trump’s executive orders in the short run, it will contribute to an environment in which increasingly egregious wrongs gradually become acceptable.

At the same time, I understand why Harvard may hesitate to take such a strong stand. It might be argued that even if universities are temporarily unable to serve a minority of the population, the imperative to continue their vital research and teaching outweighs their responsibility to the few who are directly targeted.

This logic, however, is short-sighted. Certainly, Harvard must survive the Trump era, and it must continue to do its essential work of enlarging the gamut of human knowledge. The world needs institutions like ours. But these next four years will account for barely one percent of Harvard's history: It would be foolish to think that this relative blip could result in the downfall of such a longstanding institution.

Yet, if Harvard survives by acceding to Trump, it has forfeited its raison d’être — it can no longer claim to be an institution dedicated to seeking and defending truth.

I do not expect Harvard to release a statement tomorrow declaring their intent to disregard future executive orders — to do so would only invite legal challenges and public attacks without producing the benefits of concrete action. However, Harvard’s leaders must begin to consider, behind closed doors, how far Harvard is willing to go in enabling the Trump administration’s attacks on fundamental rights.

In the next four years, the Trump administration will be more dangerous. Harvard must not be complicit.

Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House