What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake
When universities face pressure from political forces, the line between principled negotiation and self-defeating compromise becomes dangerously thin. Columbia University learned this the hard way during the Trump administration’s aggressive policymaking era. Its experience—marked by attempts to placate federal demands—offered a cautionary tale for institutions like Harvard, which later faced similar challenges. The lesson? When cooperation and capitulation fail to produce meaningful results, doubling down on institutional values might be the only path forward.
Columbia’s Costly Compromise
In 2017, the Trump administration introduced policies targeting international students and scholars, including travel bans and heightened visa restrictions. Columbia, home to one of the largest international student populations in the U.S., found itself in a bind. To avoid backlash, the university initially adopted a conciliatory approach. Administrators quietly revised policies to align with federal guidelines, restricted public criticism of the administration, and even delayed issuing statements supporting affected students. The goal was pragmatic: minimize disruption and preserve federal funding.
But the strategy backfired. Faculty and students accused the administration of prioritizing financial stability over academic freedom and human rights. Protests erupted, and Columbia’s reputation as a global academic leader took a hit. Worse, the concessions didn’t shield the university from scrutiny. Federal agencies continued to investigate its international programs, and enrollment among foreign applicants dipped. By trying to appease the administration, Columbia alienated its own community while gaining nothing in return.
Harvard’s Defiant Playbook
Harvard, observing Columbia’s missteps, chose a different route. When the Trump administration threatened to withhold funding from institutions mandating COVID-19 vaccinations in 2020, Harvard didn’t soften its stance. Instead, it publicly defended its health policies, citing scientific consensus and institutional autonomy. The university also joined lawsuits challenging federal overreach, such as the attempt to deport international students during the pandemic.
This approach wasn’t risk-free. Legal battles drained resources, and public clashes with the administration drew partisan criticism. Yet Harvard’s refusal to capitulate strengthened its credibility. Donors, alumni, and faculty rallied behind the institution, viewing its defiance as a defense of academic independence. Crucially, courts often sided with Harvard, reinforcing the idea that resistance could yield tangible victories.
The Power of Institutional Unity
Columbia’s experience revealed a critical flaw: fractured leadership. While administrators negotiated behind closed doors, students and faculty felt excluded from decision-making. This lack of transparency bred distrust. Harvard, meanwhile, prioritized consensus. Before taking legal or public action, it consulted stakeholders—faculty senates, student groups, and legal experts—to build a united front. This cohesion made its resistance more sustainable and morally persuasive.
For example, when the Trump administration moved to end protections for DACA recipients, Harvard didn’t just issue a statement. It mobilized resources to support undocumented students, including legal aid and scholarship funds. By aligning actions with values, the university turned a political challenge into a moment of institutional solidarity.
Why Capitulation Fails
Both cases highlight a broader truth: appeasing authoritarian demands rarely works. Governments that target universities often have ideological agendas, not practical ones. Compromise signals weakness, inviting more pressure. Columbia’s attempts to “play nice” only emboldened regulators to escalate their demands. In contrast, Harvard’s resistance forced the administration to weigh the costs of a prolonged fight.
There’s also a pragmatic argument. Modern universities rely on global talent and partnerships. Surrendering to xenophobic or anti-intellectual policies undermines their mission. Columbia’s enrollment declines showed how quickly reputational damage can impact viability. Harvard, by defending its inclusive values, preserved its appeal to students and scholars worldwide.
Lessons for the Future
The Trump era may have ended, but the tension between universities and political power persists. Harvard’s strategy offers a blueprint:
1. Lead with values, not fear. Policies rooted in institutional mission withstand political winds better than reactive compromises.
2. Build coalitions. Resistance is stronger when faculty, students, and alumni share a voice.
3. Leverage legal tools. Courts remain a check on executive overreach, but victories require preparation and courage.
4. Communicate transparently. Stakeholders tolerate risk when they understand the stakes.
Columbia’s mistake wasn’t its desire to avoid conflict—it was the assumption that conflict could be avoided at all. In today’s polarized climate, universities can’t outmaneuver political attacks through silence or submission. As Harvard demonstrated, sometimes the only way to survive a storm is to stand firm—and let the opposition learn what you’re made of.
The takeaway for higher education? Principles aren’t just moral luxuries; they’re strategic assets. When cooperation fails, conviction might be the only language power understands.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake