What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake
When the Trump administration demanded universities comply with controversial policies—from immigration restrictions to research funding conditions—many institutions scrambled to balance principle with pragmatism. Columbia University, in its early attempts to negotiate, became a cautionary tale. Harvard, observing the fallout, quietly charted a different course. Here’s what happened, and why it matters for academic freedom today.
The Columbia Experiment: When Compromise Backfires
In 2017, Columbia found itself at the center of a political storm. The Trump administration threatened to withhold federal research grants unless universities supported policies like increased surveillance of international students and restricted partnerships with foreign institutions. Columbia’s leadership, fearing financial repercussions and hoping to maintain influence, opted for cautious cooperation. They revised visa protocols, limited collaborations with researchers from certain countries, and avoided public criticism of the administration.
The result? A lose-lose scenario. Faculty and students criticized the administration for abandoning its stated values of global collaboration and inclusivity. Meanwhile, the concessions failed to appease federal officials, who continued escalating demands. By 2019, Columbia faced reduced applications from international scholars, reputational damage, and internal distrust. Their strategy of appeasement had neither protected funding nor preserved institutional integrity.
Harvard’s Calculus: Principle Over Pragmatism
Harvard watched closely. When similar pressures mounted—particularly around immigration policies targeting students and faculty—the university took a starkly different approach. Instead of negotiating behind closed doors, Harvard’s leadership publicly denounced the administration’s demands as antithetical to academic freedom. They joined lawsuits challenging travel bans, vocally supported DACA recipients, and refused to alter admissions policies targeting international applicants.
Critics warned this defiance would provoke retaliation. Yet Harvard’s stance yielded unexpected advantages:
1. Moral Authority: By aligning actions with its mission, Harvard bolstered its reputation as a defender of intellectual liberty. Donors and alumni rallied behind the cause, offsetting potential financial risks.
2. Legal Leverage: Collective lawsuits with peer institutions created a united front, making federal overreach harder to enforce.
3. Global Trust: International students and researchers, seeing Harvard as a safe harbor, continued applying in record numbers.
The takeaway? Resistance, when grounded in institutional values, can mitigate risks and reinforce credibility.
The Power of Saying “No”
Columbia’s mistake wasn’t just poor strategy—it reflected a deeper misjudgment. Universities often assume compliance buys leverage. But when dealing with bad-faith actors, concessions are interpreted as weakness, not goodwill.
Harvard’s playbook reveals three lessons:
1. Define Non-Negotiables Early: Harvard’s public statements emphasized that certain principles—like nondiscrimination and open inquiry—were non-negotiable. This clarity deterred incremental erosion of autonomy.
2. Build Coalitions: By partnering with peer institutions, civil rights groups, and corporations, Harvard diluted the government’s ability to single out dissenters.
3. Prepare for the Long Game: Legal battles and funding shifts are costly, but Harvard’s endowment and alumni network provided a buffer. Not all schools have this luxury, but pooling resources (e.g., shared legal funds) can level the playing field.
Why This Matters Beyond Academia
The Trump-era clashes weren’t isolated incidents. Governments worldwide are increasingly weaponizing funding, visas, and regulations to sway universities. From Hungary’s crackdown on academic dissent to China’s influence over research partnerships, the stakes are global.
Harvard’s response offers a blueprint: Institutions thrive when they anchor decisions to core values, not short-term expediency. Compromise has its place—but not when it undermines the very purpose of higher education.
The Road Ahead
Columbia eventually recalibrated, joining lawsuits and reversing some policies. But rebuilding trust took years. Harvard’s proactive stance spared it similar damage, proving that in turbulent times, courage isn’t just ethical—it’s strategic.
For universities navigating political pressures, the message is clear: If cooperation feeds exploitation, resistance becomes the only viable path. After all, when the goalposts keep moving, standing firm isn’t stubbornness—it’s survival.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake