What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Compromise Backfires
In 2018, Columbia University found itself in a bind. The Trump administration had announced sweeping changes to federal policies impacting international students, including stricter visa regulations and heightened scrutiny of academic programs. Columbia, like many institutions, initially responded with caution. Administrators engaged in behind-the-scenes negotiations, hoping to preserve access for global scholars while avoiding public clashes with federal authorities. But as months passed, it became clear that cooperation wasn’t working. The concessions Columbia made—watering down language in public statements, delaying advocacy efforts—only emboldened further demands. By the time the university shifted tactics, its credibility with students, faculty, and global partners had already eroded.
Harvard watched closely. The episode became a case study in how appeasement can fail. When faced with similar pressures, Harvard chose a different path—one that offers lessons for institutions navigating political headwinds without sacrificing core values.
The Columbia Conundrum: Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes
Columbia’s leadership believed that quiet diplomacy would protect its interests. After all, universities rely on federal funding, research partnerships, and visa programs to function. Open defiance risked retaliation, such as funding cuts or stricter immigration enforcement. But the administration underestimated two things: the scope of the Trump administration’s agenda and the cost of incremental compromises.
For example, when new rules threatened to deport international students enrolled in online programs during the pandemic, Columbia initially lobbied privately for exemptions. But as similar schools like MIT and UCLA filed lawsuits, Columbia hesitated, fearing backlash. By the time it joined a coalition of universities challenging the policy, public trust had waned. Students criticized the delay as prioritizing optics over action. Faculty accused the administration of undermining academic freedom. The lesson? Half-measures can alienate stakeholders without achieving tangible results.
Harvard’s Playbook: Clarity Over Concessions
Harvard’s approach to federal pressure has been markedly different. When the Trump administration targeted diversity initiatives in 2020, alleging racial discrimination in admissions, Harvard didn’t soften its stance. Instead, it doubled down on its commitment to inclusivity, marshaling data and legal arguments to defend its policies. The university also leveraged its institutional voice, publishing op-eds and hosting forums to explain why diversity strengthens education.
This strategy wasn’t risk-free. The Department of Education threatened investigations, and conservative media amplified accusations of “liberal bias.” But Harvard’s transparency paid off. By framing the issue as a matter of academic integrity rather than political compliance, it rallied alumni, donors, and peer institutions to its cause. Courts eventually sided with Harvard, but the broader victory was in maintaining community trust. As one faculty member noted, “You can’t negotiate with bad-faith actors. You have to draw a line.”
Why Cooperation Fails in Hostile Environments
The divergence between Columbia and Harvard highlights a critical insight: Not all conflicts can be resolved through negotiation. When one party’s goal is to dismantle your position—not find common ground—compromise becomes a trap. The Trump administration’s demands often fell into this category. Policies targeting international students, diversity programs, and research funding weren’t mere bureaucratic tweaks; they were part of a broader effort to reshape higher education’s role in society.
In such cases, capitulation signals weakness. Columbia’s attempts to “meet halfway” were interpreted as opportunities to push for more. Harvard, by contrast, treated federal overreach as an existential threat. Its refusal to back down forced opponents to either escalate publicly—a move with political costs—or retreat.
The Power of Institutional Identity
Another key takeaway is the importance of institutional identity. Harvard’s reputation as a defender of liberal values isn’t just branding; it’s a strategic asset. By aligning its response with its historical commitment to open inquiry and global engagement, Harvard turned a political challenge into a reaffirmation of its mission. Columbia, meanwhile, struggled to reconcile its actions with its self-image as a progressive institution. This dissonance fueled internal dissent and external skepticism.
Students and faculty today expect universities to take stands on issues like immigration and equity. Neutrality is increasingly seen as complicity. Columbia’s misstep wasn’t just tactical—it was philosophical. By trying to please everyone, it pleased no one.
Lessons for the Next Crisis
The challenges facing universities won’t disappear with shifting administrations. Climate change, AI ethics, and global conflicts will continue to test institutional resolve. Harvard’s playbook offers a blueprint:
1. Define non-negotiables early. Identify policies or values you’re unwilling to compromise, and communicate them clearly to stakeholders.
2. Build coalitions. MIT’s partnership with Harvard in lawsuits against the Trump administration amplified their impact. Isolated institutions are easier targets.
3. Use your platform. Public advocacy isn’t just about winning battles; it’s about shaping narratives. Silence cedes the story to others.
4. Prepare for blowback. Resistance invites scrutiny. Ensure legal, financial, and PR teams are aligned before taking bold steps.
Columbia’s experience reminds us that goodwill alone can’t protect academic freedom. Harvard’s response proves that institutions don’t have to choose between survival and principle—they can defend both by refusing to play a losing game. In an era of polarization, that’s a lesson worth remembering.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Compromise Backfires