If Harvard Won’t Stand Up, Who Will?

In the face of the gravest threat to higher education of our lifetimes, Harvard has gone fetal.

On Monday, the Trump administration announced a review of over $8 billion of Harvard’s federal funding as part of an ongoing investigation by the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. That evening, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 followed up with a conciliatory email entitled “Our Resolve.”

To which we feel compelled to ask: What resolve exactly?

At every turn of the second Trump era, Harvard has followed the path of least resistance. The newest wave of federal funding threats should remind University leaders that obedience doesn’t make us any safer — but collective action could.

Let’s take stock of Harvard’s strategy over the last four months. In the midst of inauguration day, the University hired a lobbying firm helmed by a veteran of the Trump campaign and adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism wholly at odds with its commitment to academic freedom.

Over just the last week, the University made headlines for firing top leaders at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and suspending its ties with one of the foremost universities in the West Bank. All the while, it kept conspicuously quiet as international students were disappeared by immigration authorities nationwide.

Now, Harvard has topped off its capitulation campaign with President Garber’s mealy-mouthed email pledging to engage with the White House’s highly suspect claims about addressing antisemitism.

Of course, we don’t yet know how this high-stakes extortion racket will play out. But we’ve seen the prequel to this movie before. Columbia University — which had taken a harsh approach to student protests — was one of the first victims of the federal government’s ransom-act. With $400 million in federal grants and contracts hanging in the balance, Columbia’s leadership bared their bellies to the Trump administration, hastily agreeing to a host of new policies dictated to them by the White House.

What do they have to show for it? Not $400 million, which the Trump administration has yet to return, but their fourth president in just a few years — this one snatched straight from the school’s top governing board.

Acquiescence offers no guarantee of security for Harvard, or any other university for that matter. And even if it had half a hope of panning out for us — what about the fate of higher education as a whole?

The Trump administration is launching a barely disguised crusade against colleges across the country. Whether the pretext is antisemitism, like at Harvard, or transgender athletics in the case of the University of Pennsylvania, the basic blueprint is clear. And by complying one-by-one with the shakedown apparatus, higher education is playing right into Trump’s hands.

So instead of lining up like dominoes ready to be felled by a hostile White House, Harvard and other universities must join arms and stand firm. As part of the bedrock of a functioning democracy, higher education has an obligation to resist this authoritarian assault.

In practice, Harvard could lead a coalition of universities that pools money to help weather future funding-cut storms, joins together in legal action to protect students’ rights, and — if it comes to it — be willing to pay the financial price of standing by our commitment to academic freedom and democracy.

As Trump unleashes a salvo on colleges across the country, it’s easy to run for cover. But if a university of Harvard’s stature won’t step up, then who will?

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.