It seems President Trump and his influential adviser, Stephen Miller, are not ones to shy away from a confrontation, even with the nation’s most privileged and historical academia, namely Harvard University. The response from this Ivy League institution marked a dramatic deviation in its erstwhile demeanor. Harvard’s history spans over a century more than that of the U.S., its wealth can outsize the GDPs of around a 100 nations, and boasts the honor of being the academic home to eight American Presidents. Hence, if there were any place to oppose Trump and Miller’s crusade against higher education, Harvard was evidently the frontrunner.
Harvard decided to vehemently step up against President Trump’s administration on Monday, a move that sparked vitality into a multitude of universities nationwide, living in trepidation of presidential irascibility. The institution chose to hold its moral and academic ground, refusing to concede to the demands of President Trump concerning hiring, admissions, and curriculum matter. This naturally drew praise from the many critics of the Trump administration.
Some observers suggested that Harvard’s unruffled stand against these demands might well embolden other entities often under the White House’s criticism, including the legal sector, the press, as well as the courts, to put up a stronger resistance. The marked importance of this event cannot be understated, said J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appeals court judge who holds quite a sway among conservatives. ‘This should hopefully be a turning point in the administration’s ongoing onslaught against American institutions,’ he opined.
Michael S. Roth, President of Wesleyan University, made it a point to express his support for Harvard’s stand. He is one of the few among university heads who dares to openly criticise the White House. He stated, ‘When institutions invariably overstep their boundaries, they tend to calibrate their strategies once they face tough opposition.’ In other words, it seems Roth equates the current government’s actions to the metaphor of a bully being eventually confronted.
In a quick response to Harvard’s refusal to submit to its demands, the federal government announced they would withhold $2.2 billion in multiyear grants earmarked for the university, and an additional $60 million contract. One might question the substantive impact of these financial actions, considering that they amount to a mere fraction of the massive annual federal funding of $9 billion that Harvard enjoys.
This total $9 billion breaks down into $7 billion that is channeled to the universities 11 affiliated hospitals in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., such institutions include Massachusetts General, Boston Children’s Hospital, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Diabetic research, space research, cancer research, research on Alzheimer’s disease, and tuberculosis, are all noble and important efforts within Harvard achieving their funding via the remaining amount of $2 billion.
One would assume that such a landmark move by a university like Harvard, and the subsequent responses, would be met with an enlightening and balanced discourse about academia’s role in sticking to its principles in face of political pressure. However, the reality seems a far cry from this ideal, especially when political motivations and biases come into play.
Opposition is well and good, but we must remember that an institution that thrives on $9 billion in federal funding can afford to put up such a fight. Harvard’s stance though commendable, was a given considering their financial comfort. The move was not without its critics and sparked a debate about its implications, both immediate and longer-term.
The current administration seems to believe that education, as a sector, should work in line with the larger goals of the country. But Harvard’s defense of their hiring and admission principles seems to be more about safeguarding the norm than thinking about reforms. This position reflects a status quo bias that large, affluent institutions like Harvard like to maintain.
There is also a school of thought that believes in more radical stances for transformational changes, as against the more conventional wisdom of centering around established norms. The current political administration seems to reflect this school of thought. One cannot help but see the irony of Harvard, an institute for education, not wanting any reform in its traditional working model.
When an administration tries to bring reform to larger governing processes, resistance from establishments that prefer to maintain the status quo, like Harvard, appears inevitable. Does this make the Trump administration’s move an ‘onslaught,’ as claimed by the likes of Luttig? Or is it simply a misunderstanding or unacceptance on the part of the traditional academia of the essence of these reforms?
For institutions like Harvard that are buttressed by aestral wealth and prestige, dissent or non-compliance comes easy. So while we witness a powerful academic institution like Harvard stand tall as a beacon for other universities, it would be remiss to not remember the slap of the privileged hand. The repercussions for smaller, less elite educational institutions could never be paralleled.
While Harvard’s defiance may inspire some other universities, the narrative at play here is of fortune versus scaling—even a partial funding freeze, like the one under consideration, could cripple smaller institutions. Change, it seems, is most fiercely resisted by those who have the most to lose, yet it is seldom they who face the brunt of the repercussions.
Wesleyan University’s Michael S. Roth suggestion that a ‘bully is stopped in his tracks,’ seems to depict the situation in a false light. It suggests a power dynamic where Harvard is the underdog standing up to an oppressor, totally ignoring the fact that Harvard itself is a Goliath, thanks to the support and funding from U.S. taxpayers.
In comparison, one could see Trump’s administration like a David trying to bring about changes in a system and fighting a well-ensconced Goliath. The ‘bully’ that Roth refers to could very well be the wealthy, influential academia that employs federal funding to its advantage while resisting change.
In the end, while some might see Harvard’s resistance as brave and transformative, from a more balanced perspective, it could bear the repugnant scent of cynicism and entitlement. This slap in the face delivered by Harvard to the Trump administration is a significant reminder of the locus of power and influence in America. Yet, the narrative seems hinged on selective perspectives rather than a true reflection of this academic standoff.