Reading the headlines I thought at first maybe Harvard had issued two new letters to the Trump Administration. The Washington Post story was headlined “Harvard rejects Trump administration’s claims as funding battle escalates.” Sounds pretty resistance-y to me.
But the NY Times headline about what turns out to be the same letter is headlined very differently: “Harvard Argues It Has ‘Common Ground’ With Trump Administration.”
So which is it? Is Harvard cozying up to the administration or flipping the bird at them? I think the answer is that they’re trying to do a little of both but the cozying up is probably more noteworthy. CNN’s headline reflects that: “Harvard says it has ‘common ground’ with Trump administration, but is ‘undermined’ by government overreach.” The letter, published today, opens with the agreement the school shares with Sec. of Education McMahon.
As your letter suggests, we share common ground on a number of critical issues, including the importance of ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. Like you, I believe that Harvard must foster an academic environment that encourages freedom of thought and expression, and that we should embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints rather than focusing our attention on narrow orthodoxies. I also believe that Harvard cannot achieve these objectives if open debate undertaken in good faith is unwelcome. And you and I have a shared interest in ensuring that American universities continue to be global leaders in innovative and life-saving research that benefits all Americans, boosts the national economy, and serves the country’s interests. Finally, there is no question that Harvard must follow the law.
And in between that opening paragraph and the next one is a big old “But…“
Harvard’s efforts to achieve these goals are undermined and threatened by the federal government’s overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities and its continuing disregard of Harvard’s compliance with the law. It ignores the many meaningful steps we have taken and will continue to take to live up to our principles and improve the lives of people across the country and throughout the world. That is why we have gone to court to address the government’s unlawful attempt to control fundamental aspects of our university’s operations. Consistent with the law and with our own values, we continue to pursue needed reforms, doing so in consultation with our stakeholders and always in compliance with the law. But Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government.
This is followed by several paragraphs claiming Harvard is doing a lot of things that line up with what the administration is asking including efforts to combat anti-Semitism and embrace more intellectual diversity, which suggests an acknowledgement that they don’t have enough diversity of views at the moment. And yet, Harvard draws the line at the suggestion the schools is partisan.
I must refute your claim that Harvard is a partisan institution. It is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be. Harvard is a place to bring people of all backgrounds together to learn in an inclusive environment where ideas flourish regardless of whether they are deemed “conservative,” “liberal,” or something else, a place where assumptions and claims are tested and challenged, respectfully and thoughtfully, in pursuit of knowledge and truth.
This is the kind of disingenuous crap that I’m used to hearing from major media outlets when they get caught taking the field to defend Democrats (or trying to score points against Republicans). I’m sorry but it’s just laughable to claim that Harvard isn’t partisan. The Harvard Crimson posted a survey of the class of 2024 last year and asked them about their political preferences.
…the Class of 2024 overwhelmingly disapproves of former President Donald Trump, and the majority said they would vote for President Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential election, though they are lukewarm on Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris overall.
The majority of respondents to the senior survey, or 59 percent, described their views as progressive or very progressive prior to coming to Harvard. Seniors roughly maintained their political views through graduation, with approximately 55 percent identifying as progressive or very progressive when they responded to the survey.
The portion of the class that reported conservative or very conservative views remained stable, at 13 percent prior to entering Harvard and at graduation.
So there are 4 times as many progressives in last year’s graduating class as conservatives, with about a quarter of the class identifying as moderates. Of course we don’t know what qualifies as moderate or conservative at Harvard. What we do know is that when asked about the two major parties, 83% of the class had a negative view of Republicans and only 7% had a positive view. That’s just shy of a 12:1 ratio. Feelings about President Trump were 90% negative and 5% positive, an 18:1 ratio.
Harvard can claim that these divides are roughly the same as when students entered the university. In other words, Harvard didn’t change them much. That’s fine, but you still have an institution composed of students who are 12:1 against Republicans and 18:1 against Trump. And that’s just the students. The breakdown among the faculty and staff is similar.
Just under 32 percent of faculty respondents said they were “very liberal.” Approximately 45 percent of respondents identified as “liberal,” 20 percent as “moderate,” more than 2 percent as “conservative,” and less than 1 percent as “very conservative.”
These results largely track with last year’s results of The Crimson’s faculty survey, where more than 80 percent of respondents said they identified as liberal, with only 1 percent identifying as conservative.
Harvard is a very partisan place. The fact that Harvard is pretending that’s not the case in this letter today shows they aren’t really serious about changing things on campus. So long as that’s true, the claims that they support more intellectual diversity should be viewed with suspicion.
