[[link removed]]

WHO DOES HARVARD OWE?  
[[link removed]]


 

Harvard Crimson Editorial

The Crimson

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The question of who gets a say is not a sideshow. It is Harvard’s
defining issue. A university that silences students and sidelines
faculty becomes reactive, brittle, and beholden. A university that
distributes power, though, becomes resilient. _

,

 

This year, Harvard has been pulled in every direction — by Congress,
donors, media, and its own constituents. What started as a crisis of
leadership quickly became something deeper: a test of whether Harvard
could govern itself at all.

In all the noise, one fundamental question remains unanswered: Who
gets a say as to how Harvard is governed?

We have seen what happens when the answer excludes Harvard affiliates.
When Congress demands a crackdown and the Harvard Corporation seems to
comply.

But this year has also shown what happens when the Harvard community
refuses to be intimidated. Faculty lawsuits led to University
lawsuits, and voices across disciplines, generations, and identities
rallied in defense of what this University ought to be.

In resisting the Trump administration’s attacks, we caught a glimpse
of something rare: a university willing to speak with its own voice at
a time when its very ethos has stood trial.

WHO GETS A SAY BUT SHOULDN’T?

Over the past year, Harvard has fallen under siege, brought on not
only by some of its failures, but also by many of its successes.

To its enemies, Harvard’s status as a global institution and
cultivator of independent thought makes it a juicy political target.
And in 2025, right-wing politicians have done their best to bring that
target to heel.

From the moment President Donald Trump earned his return ticket to the
White House, it was clear that higher education would be in the
crosshairs. Harvard, the crown jewel of American academia, was primed
to become an early victim.

We all knew
[[link removed]] the
conflict was coming. With its vast power and influence, Harvard
was not only poised
[[link removed]], but
obligated
[[link removed]] to
lead the defense of academic freedom and democratic principles.

When the chaos arrived, it arrived swiftly: The government began
dismantling diversity programs, cut research funds nationwide, and
called for surveillance against international students. Harvard faced
a stark choice: bend the knee and lose its integrity or stand firm and
bear the costs.

We urged the latter. Again and again, we insisted Harvard could —
and must — resist. We insisted that the attacks on certain diversity
programs were fickle and opportunistic
[[link removed]].
That repression could be met with creative defiance
[[link removed]].
And that appeasement would buy us nothing
[[link removed]].

We learned the lessons
[[link removed]] of
Columbia University’s acquiescence — which seemed to win them
nothing but further attacks. When Harvard finally stood its ground
[[link removed]] and
sued the Trump administration, we applauded
[[link removed]] the
move as a worthwhile stand.

By defending its autonomy, Harvard proved it could become the champion
higher education so desperately needed. And yet, at key junctures, the
University has acted as though Trump’s vision were its own.

Almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration, Harvard settled
[[link removed]] two
lawsuits related to antisemitism. As part of the terms, Harvard
adopted the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
definition. We’ve argued
[[link removed]],
alongside many scholars and civil rights groups, that the definition
conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel and thus chills
pro-Palestine speech.

Shortly afterwards, Harvard amended its anti-discrimination policies
and suggested controversial statements in academic work would only
“ordinarily” not violate Harvard’s new anti-bullying standards.
The ambiguity of this standard posed a worrying threat
[[link removed]] to
speech.

Similar moves followed. In rapid succession, the University came after
not one, not two, but three different academic departments and
programs pertaining to Palestine. The Center for Middle Eastern
Studies had its directors dismissed
[[link removed]],
the Harvard School of Public Health suspended its research
partnership
[[link removed]] with
Palestine’s Birzeit University, and Harvard Divinity School paused
the
[[link removed]] Religion,
Conflict, and Peace Initiative altogether. Then the Palestine
Solidarity Committee was placed on probation for a protest it did not
officially organize — a move so draconian and opaque
[[link removed]] it
smacked of pretext.

This is not how principled institutions respond to pressure. When
Harvard trades external scrutiny for internal repression, the
University doesn’t buy relief — it emboldens more attacks. It
signals that the lever of intimidation is working.

Worse still, it forfeits the moral high ground that Harvard so badly
needs. Mimicking the strong-arm tactics of our detractors only lends
ill-intentioned critics legitimacy.

To win the battle for America’s future, Harvard must remain faithful
to its values — the opposite of what Trump’s attacks represent.
The University cannot afford to lurch from scandal to scandal,
reshaping itself in response to every congressional inquiry or donor
tantrum. When it ignores the voices of its constituents, that’s
exactly what it does.

The question of who gets a say is not a sideshow. It is Harvard’s
defining issue. A university that silences students and sidelines
faculty becomes reactive, brittle, and beholden. A university that
distributes power, though, becomes resilient.

WHO SHOULD HAVE A SAY?

The exemplars of moral clarity are often found in our classrooms. When
the administration waffled, faculty stepped up. The Harvard chapter of
the American Association of University Professors took the lead
in suing the Trump administration
[[link removed]] over
the attempted deportations of pro-Palestinian academics and students.
They knew early on what was at stake: academic freedom and the soul of
the University.

Our faculty are on the front lines of the struggle for intellectual
freedom. When top-down closures or political calculations override
their voices, our institution suffers. Harvard must empower faculty as
guardians of its mission, not sideline them in times of crisis.

The easiest, most straightforward path to doing so is through the
adoption
[[link removed]] of
a faculty senate
[[link removed]].
At the very least, doing so would consolidate an important reservoir
of opinion regarding the University’s governance. At best, a faculty
senate could keep Harvard’s policies focused on ensuring our
University remains academically free and in service of excellence.
Amid the clamor of donors and headlines, faculty anchor the
University’s mission.

Students, too, should play an increased role in shaping the decisions
of our University. Any policy that affects Harvard often primarily
affects students — we frequently navigate the uneven terrain between
Harvard’s values and its operational priorities.

Students serve on the Honor Council, entrusted to adjudicate academic
dishonesty among peers. And yet, unlike its peer institutions, Harvard
College excludes students
[[link removed]] from
its Administrative Board — the body responsible for certain
decisions in student disciplinary cases.

That exclusion suggests the University sees student participation as
ornamental. When it comes to shaping or enforcing the rules that
govern us, we are kept at arm’s length.

That matters. Disciplinary policy cannot be altogether neutral. It
determines how protest is policed, how dissent is punished, and which
forms of student expression are tolerated. In an America where free
speech can no longer be taken for granted, such decisions take on
increased importance.

At Tufts University, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents
abducted Rumeysa Ozturk, seemingly for nothing more than writing an
op-ed — a chilling violation
[[link removed]] of
civil liberties in broad daylight.

Harvard’s actions do not exist in a vacuum. When the University
privilege certain speech, it sends a signal — to the government, to
the media, to law enforcement — about which forms of speech are
acceptable and which are punishable.

Faculty and students are not just stakeholders — we are stewards of
Harvard’s values. They teach its classes, fill its lecture halls,
and carry its principles into the world beyond campus. If this
institution wants to defend academic freedom, it must start by
trusting those who live it.

THE PATH FORWARD

As its lawsuits prepare to be litigated in court, Harvard faces a
monumental task in standing up to a hostile government as the guardian
of higher education. It cannot defeat the Trump agenda by mirroring
its logic.

Policies shaped through dialogue with the people those policies will
affect look less like crisis management and more like collective
resolve. They hold up under scrutiny because they are built to be
defended, not abandoned after scandals subside. They carry a
legitimacy that cannot be undone by hostile politicians.

On a campus in dire need of unity, democratic governance is also a
tool of cohesion. Students and faculty are far more likely to defend
what they helped build as opposed to fighting edicts imposed on them
from above.

For Harvard to survive this moment — and lead through it — it must
reimagine who has a say. As Cambridge becomes the crucible for the
values of education, Harvard must ask not what it can afford to lose,
but instead what it must defend.

_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_ [[link removed]]_._

WANT TO KEEP UP WITH BREAKING NEWS? Subscribe to our email
newsletter. [[link removed]]

* Harvard University
[[link removed]]
* college students
[[link removed]]
* faculty
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]