Harvard
The scene in front of the Widener Library following a Harvard commencement. (Photo via Creative Commons by Ian Lamont - harvardextended.blogspot.com) field_54b3f951675b3

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S attacks on Harvard University contort the government’s regulatory power to exert ideological control over higher education. Harvard is a prime target because of its prominence and its wealth. Even though continuing to fight entails immediate discomfort, Harvard must resist the urge to take refuge in any temporary and illusory settlement. 

Fundamentally, the government’s list of allegations against Harvard and other universities smacks of a recent law school graduate developing a checklist of hypothetical arguments. 

The administration has presented no evidence for most of its claims, and Harvard has taken corrective action on the few that have a modicum of merit. Any organization, however distinguished, can become better. But the idea that a preeminent institution of higher education is so corrupt that the federal government must execute a hostile takeover strains credulity.  

Nonetheless, Harvard is still negotiating in good faith with its arbitrary and capricious antagonists. Striking an agreement would be mistake.  

Whether the Trump administration will honor any such agreement is uncertain. Harvard’s own dealings with the administration indicate that officials generate an ever-escalating set of regulatory threats.  

The accusations of the moment seem to move to the next item on the law graduate’s checklist. Settlement when future claims could be made based on the administration’s vindictive and retaliatory whims does not serve Harvard’s goals: protecting academic freedom and remaining in control over the ability to select students, hire faculty, and teach and conduct research according to recognized standards and values. 

Standing up to this unlawful and extortionist effort to control private institutions is not a comfortable position for Harvard – or any university, law firm, media organization, or corporation also in the Trump administration’s sights. Surprisingly, many of the most privileged and wealthy organizations and people in the country seem unwilling to use their power and to make sacrifices necessary to reject authoritarian control.   

Harvard must embrace discomfort and follow the example of notable movements that overcame government wrongdoing. Official segregation at public universities like the University of Mississippi and University of Georgia ended because people like James Meredith and Charlayne Hunter-Gault pursued their education despite violent threats. The Washington Post and New York Times withstood the retaliatory threats of the Nixon administration to publish the Pentagon Papers, official documents exposing government lies about the conduct of the Vietnam War. Central European University in Budapest relocated to Vienna rather than capitulate to the coercive intrusions of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s regime. And every law firm that has challenged the Trump administration’s sanctions has won in court, refusing to acquiesce in the silencing of advocates for the rule of law.  

Harvard should follow these examples. In this worthy crusade, Harvard can rely on the faith of thousands of alumni, students, and faculty who urge the university to stand its ground. 

Obviously, Harvard cannot relocate to another country to escape government intrusion. To steel its resolve, Harvard leaders need only recall the eternal shame of every institution that failed to desegregate voluntarily.   

During the “Red Scare” of the Cold War era, universities imposed ideological and viewpoint orthodoxy on faculty members, capitulating to federal and state government threats, costing many scholars their careers, and depriving students of valuable diverse perspectives. Universities have been apologizing for this cowardice and failure to defend academic freedom ever since. They should not make the same mistake in responding to the Trump administration’s abuse of federal regulatory power to impose its preferred viewpoints on higher education institutions. 

The harsh impact of lost funding and regulatory constraints on jobs, scholarly pursuits, and student opportunities cannot be discounted. Unlike many institutions, however, Harvard is in a privileged position to mitigate these effects. Of what use is power and prestige earned over the centuries if not deployed in the current circumstances? 

Authoritarian overreach requires a resolute response. Wealthy universities and their donors are accustomed to being comfortable.  

In an 1857 speech, Frederick Douglass said, “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” The Trump administration’s intrusive and illegal actions demand leaving the realm of comfort, taking risks, and enduring for as long as it takes and as uncomfortable as it becomes to preserve the principles of academic independence. 

Renée M. Landers is a professor at Suffolk University Law School. She was a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers from 1991 to 1997 and served as president of the board from 1996 to 1997.