Harvard University is perhaps the most successful institution of the last 400 years, outside of some nation states and a handful of religions. Yet, that very success may have set Harvard up for failure in its current confrontation with the Trump administration.
An April 22nd New York Times article, “As Harvard Is Hailed a Hero, Some Donors Still Want It to Strike a Deal,” includes phrases like “Harvard is a hero,” “an unwitting hero,” “the backbone of the resistance,” “a fiery rebuttal to Mr. Trump’s demands,” and “Harvard was in the fight.” What is the expected lifespan of someone called a “hero,” especially if the battle has just commenced?
Last week, White House and administration officials made at least three overtures to a Harvard representative in an attempt to restart talks. The school’s leadership rebuffed them all, according to two people with knowledge of the outreach. Most, but not all, members of the Harvard Corporation, emboldened, in part, by the positive reaction to the school’s combative response to the White House, are adamant that they will not so much as negotiate with Mr. Trump.
Harvard has set itself up as Enemy #1 against the full power of the federal government. Is that really a better strategy than Dartmouth’s conciliation? I doubt it. There are three reasons why Harvard’s hubris might lead it to disaster.
First, although the Trump administration’s letter to Harvard of April 11th includes a variety of demands, many of which are unreasonable or literally impossible, it does contain this key complaint:
Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision last year, Harvard continues to discriminate against white and Asian applicants. Does anyone dispute this fact? Plenty of people think that Harvard should be allowed to discriminate, should do whatever it takes to ensure that enough of its students are black or Hispanic. Still, the fact that it discriminates is impossible to deny.
The federal government knows that Harvard discriminates and is well within its rights to do whatever it takes to stop that discrimination. Morever, fighting this discrimination is a winning political issue. If the federal government drops all its other complaints and demands that—anonymized—application data be made public, Harvard can either comply or not. Either choice will prove its discriminatory behavior.
[RELATED: NAS Statement: Fighting Harvard and the Other Cultural Warlords]
Second, Harvard is extremely vulnerable to the possible revocation of student visas. Consider 8 U.S.C. § 1201:
After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation.
The Trump administration could, at any time and for any reason, revoke the student visas of every foreign student attending Harvard, even before they start classes. Moreover:
There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection.
Without international students, Harvard could hardly be the world’s leading university. Also, it is not unreasonable to suspect that in some “diversity, equity, and inclusion” related cases, Harvard discriminates against U.S. applicants. That is, even if most international students are as, or even more, qualified than their U.S. counterparts, some are not. The Secretary of State can simply note: “Until Harvard provides evidence that it is not discriminating against U.S. applicants, I will not approve any student visas.” The politics of this are even better for the Trump administration than the fight against anti-Asian/white discrimination.
Third, whatever the merits of Harvard’s suit against the Trump administration and the high likelihood that some funding cuts will be reversed, nothing prevents the cessation of new grants. Each week that passes means more money lost. The Trump administration can claim, rightly so, that Harvard discriminates and that the federal government will no longer award research funding to scientists at such an institution.
And you can be certain that the researchers at other schools who have been awarded that money—money that would have gone to Harvard, were its leaders less controversial—will not be giving that money back to Harvard even after the conflict ends. That future money is gone forever. Time is not on Harvard’s side.
Harvard’s hubris is less the sin of pride than it is that of overconfidence. Harvard has much to be proud of! But it is overconfident to think that a battle with the federal government is anything like an even match. The Trump administration can crush Harvard if it chooses to do so. The sooner President Garber restarts negotiations, the better.
Image: “Havard University flag” by Manu Ros on Unsplash
“And you can be certain that the researchers at other schools who have been awarded that money—money that would have gone to Harvard, were its leaders less controversial—will not be giving that money back to Harvard even after the conflict ends.”
Who in Congress will champion Harvard’s cause? Alumnus Ted Cruz — I doubt it.
The Massachusetts Congressional Delegation are all Democrats — I believe the only one that is *all* Democrats. The only Republican Senator in all of New England is Susan Collins and she is from Northern Maine — two hours beyond where I-95 goes into Canada, and Janet Mills is giving her far more pressing local issues.
The issue is that the Harvard faculty won’t permit Harvard to stop discriminating, and Larry Summers is clear evidence of what happens to those who defy the Harvard faculty.