Harvard Must Defend Its Integrity Without Losing Its Head
Harvard Government Department professors Ryan Enos and Steven Levitsky recently warned in The Harvard Crimson that if Harvard negotiates with the Trump administration to restore frozen federal research funding, the university risks legitimizing authoritarian extortion. They describe any engagement as capitulation and argue that by cooperating with the administration—even minimally—Harvard will set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of liberal democracy.
As a member of the same Harvard community for over two decades and as a scholar of political culture and higher education, I take concerns about institutional autonomy seriously. But I also see the argument of Enos and Levitsky as alarmist and counterproductive. Harvard must absolutely preserve its independence and academic mission. But it must do so through clear thinking, legal rigor, and public accountability—not by retreating into ideological rigidity.
The truth is that Harvard, while a private institution, is also a major recipient of federal support. Harvard’s Fiscal Year 2024 Financial Overview reveals that it receives nearly $700 million annually in grants, student aid, and contracts. With federal funding comes legal responsibilities. Harvard is bound by federal anti-discrimination statutes like Title VI and Title IX, as well as broader obligations under civil rights law. Taking public money means accepting public accountability. Full stop.
If the federal government is demanding unconstitutional ideological litmus tests—say, “fire this faculty member or lose your funding”—that’s overreach, and universities must resist it through litigation, coalitions, and public advocacy. But if the administration is requiring compliance with long-standing civil rights law, such as ensuring due process or prohibiting discrimination in student discipline, then Harvard doesn’t need to “negotiate.” It needs to comply. That’s not political. That’s the law.
This is really straightforward, and what worries me most about Enos and Levitsky’s framing is the false binary it creates: either Harvard resists totally, or it succumbs. That’s not how institutions thrive, and it presents a dangerously narrow and biased narrative about both the Trump administration and Harvard.
Harvard is a civic and educational leader and has proudly been so for centuries. As such, Harvard should seek to uphold both its values and its legal obligations—not by caving, but by engaging in a way that strengthens democratic norms, not weakens them.
Unfortunately, higher education’s credibility has been eroding for years. According to Gallup, just 36% of Americans say they have confidence in colleges and universities, down sharply from 57% a decade ago. Among conservatives, that trust has all but collapsed. The perception, often well-founded, is that many universities have become insular, ideological spaces where dissenting views are not only unpopular but punished.
If Harvard truly wants to defend liberal democracy, it must first renew its commitment to pluralism, open inquiry, due process, and viewpoint diversity. This means three things right now.
First, Harvard must be clear and public about its legal obligations. It cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or political viewpoint as it has done for decades. It must protect free expression and uphold due process, especially in Title IX adjudications. These aren’t partisan demands. They’re legal and ethical imperatives that protect everyone.
Second, it must categorically reject any demand—left or right—that requires ideological conformity. The university cannot become a partisan tool, nor can it grant or withhold academic rights based on viewpoint. If the administration crosses that line, Harvard must take the fight to court.
Third, Harvard should lead as it has done for years—and lead with conviction and morality, not with moral grandstanding or performative outrage, but with institutional strength. That means organizing peer institutions, activating alumni and faculty, and demonstrating that American universities can be both independent and accountable. Higher education has faltered in many places, but our institutions of higher education can be restored and fortified, and Harvard could take the lead and assist others as well.
These behaviors and actions aren’t appeasement; they’re civic leadership.
Academic freedom, institutional integrity, and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they depend on one another. The best response to heavy-handed politics isn’t silence or defiance for its own sake—it’s measured, public, principled resistance rooted in democratic norms and constitutional law.
Harvard, like all elite institutions, has a responsibility not just to itself, but to the country. It must show that independence doesn’t mean impunity—and that fidelity to the law is not surrender, but strength.
We don’t need universities to become battlegrounds in America’s partisan wars. We need them to model how to live and think together in a pluralistic democracy and—in the spirit of the Kalven Report—to model “integrity and intellectual competence.”
Harvard must hold the line. But it must also remember where the line really is. Harvard’s motto is “Veritas,” or truth, and Enos and Levitsky know better than what they wrote; they presented a false dichotomy of what Harvard’s choices are vis-à-vis the Trump administration and, in doing so, willfully distorted the truth. Harvard has a principled path forward with the Trump administration that can return the school to its deserved greatness.
