Harvard said no. No to government minders, no to intellectual dishonesty, no to conservative DEI.
In a forceful letter of rebuke to the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal money from the university if it does not acquiesce to a series of “ham-handed” demands—including government audits to monitor “ideological capture”—Harvard president Alan M. Garber basically told the government to f–k all the way off. He said it in a more Harvard way, but that was the message.
In response, the government said it would be withholding $2.2 billion in already-appropriated grant money to the school. This is money that Garber said, in the past, “has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields.” Oh well. We probably didn’t need innovations, anyway.
Harvard’s defiance stands in embarrassing contrast to the actions of Columbia University, which, faced with similar demands, folded like a cheap diploma. (I’m exaggerating. In this country, there’s no such thing as a cheap diploma.)
Administration opponents cheered Harvard’s stance, though many pointed out that the university can easily weather the missing money—it has a $53 billion endowment. Even so, these days, one takes heart where one finds heart. In this case, it is the heart of the nation’s oldest university.
It’s one institution, but an important one. We need more defiance. We need it from the Ivy League and from garden-variety institutions. We need it from Big Law and from the little guy. We need defiance because obeisance only invites further extortion.
It goes without saying that many of the administration’s expectations of Harvard are dumb—and dangerous. Among the most ridiculous is the pairing of “merit-based” hiring and admissions at all levels with an expectation that “viewpoint diversity” is platformed over, you know, relevant qualifications. Yes, MAGA hats on campus are now a sign that DEI is working after all. A contradiction in terms? Sure, but who in the White House understands irony these days.
The question now is what happens next? Will our most thin-skinned political leaders accept opposition from a bunch of snot-nosed nerds? Or, as I expect, will they sic the full coercive force of the government on the American institution most likely to produce Matt Damon?
To this effect, Trump’s IRS is reportedly already working to end the university’s tax-exempt status, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has threatened to revoke its ability to enroll international students.
So is Harvard’s act of resistance one of many to come or an aberration in this season of cowardice? Will other schools—schools without Harvard’s financial cushion—take heart from their big brother? Will Harvard dip into that big, tax-free endowment to help schools under threat from Big Brother?
I don’t know where any of this is heading. I suspect nobody does. I do feel confident, however, that the big brains at Harvard Square are more than a match for the pea shooters operating out of Pennsylvania Avenue. That doesn’t mean academic independence will win the day, of course, but I’m buoyed by every instance of opposition to an overreaching administration more concerned with their own self-aggrandizement than the well-being of the people they were elected to serve.
This week, an institution more accustomed to giving tests than taking them passed a challenge of its own. We should applaud and support Harvard—even if we’re Yalies or Princetonians—just as we should applaud and support Wesleyan president Michael Roth, who defied the administration in a similar letter written two months ago, and that of Sally Kornbluth, president of MIT, which has filed multiple lawsuits against the administration.
Higher education serves many purposes. One of them is to train the next generation of leaders. By standing on principle, Harvard and other academic institutions are demonstrating what leadership looks like. This week, Harvard said no. How do you like dem apples?
The post Opinion: Why It Matters That Harvard Said No appeared first on The Daily Beast.
