What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Standing Firm Matters
In the fall of 2017, Columbia University found itself in a precarious position. The Trump administration had announced a controversial policy requiring international students to prove they could cover their full tuition and living expenses for their entire degree program before obtaining visas—a sharp departure from previous guidelines. Columbia, like many institutions, initially complied. Administrators reasoned that cooperation might preserve relationships with federal agencies and protect students from abrupt policy shifts. But by 2020, the university faced a reckoning: its concessions had not shielded it from further demands, and its reputation as a global academic leader had eroded.
Harvard, watching closely, took notes.
The Columbia Conundrum: When Compromise Backfires
Columbia’s approach reflected a common institutional instinct: appease authority to maintain stability. Administrators revised admissions criteria, tightened financial documentation requirements, and even delayed acceptances for international applicants struggling to meet the new rules. The logic was pragmatic—avoid confrontation to safeguard students and funding. But the strategy failed on two fronts.
First, compliance didn’t prevent escalating demands. Federal scrutiny intensified, with immigration officials auditing student records and questioning curriculum choices. Second, Columbia’s reputation suffered. Faculty criticized the administration for compromising academic freedom, while students protested policies that disproportionately affected low-income international applicants. By 2019, applications from abroad had dropped 12%, a stark contrast to peer institutions that resisted the changes.
The lesson? Capitulation often invites more pressure, not less.
Harvard’s Playbook: Principle Over Pragmatism
When similar pressures emerged, Harvard chose defiance. In 2020, the Trump administration threatened to revoke visas for international students enrolled in online-only programs during the pandemic. While some schools scrambled to hybrid models to comply, Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security. The lawsuit, filed jointly with MIT, argued the policy was arbitrary and harmful. Within a week, the administration rescinded the rule.
This wasn’t an isolated move. Harvard had already declined to participate in federal programs tied to immigration enforcement, citing ethical concerns. It also publicly criticized travel bans targeting predominantly Muslim countries, calling them “discriminatory” and “counter to our values.” Unlike Columbia, Harvard framed its resistance as non-negotiable—a stance that galvanized alumni support, strengthened faculty morale, and bolstered its global image.
Why Standing Firm Works
Harvard’s strategy succeeded for three reasons:
1. Institutional Unity
Columbia’s compromises split its community. Faculty and students felt their voices were ignored, creating internal dissent. Harvard, by contrast, aligned its actions with its mission statement. Leaders consulted stakeholders early, ensuring broad buy-in. When the visa lawsuit was announced, even conservative alumni praised the move as “defending academic integrity.”
2. Legal and Public Leverage
Harvard leveraged its legal and media clout. Its lawsuit wasn’t just a legal challenge—it was a PR masterstroke. By partnering with MIT, Harvard amplified the narrative that the policy harmed all higher education. Media coverage shifted from “elite schools vs. government” to “education vs. bureaucracy,” winning public sympathy.
3. Long-Term Vision
Columbia focused on short-term damage control. Harvard played the long game. Leaders understood that appeasing one demand could set a dangerous precedent. By resisting early, they preserved autonomy for future battles.
The Ripple Effect
Harvard’s approach influenced other institutions. When the Biden administration proposed stricter Title IX enforcement in 2021, dozens of universities cited Harvard’s litigation strategy as a model. Meanwhile, Columbia quietly reversed many of its Trump-era policies in 2022, acknowledging that cooperation had “undermined trust.”
Conclusion: The Cost of Compromise
Columbia’s experience reveals a harsh truth: in polarized times, neutrality is an illusion. Institutions that prioritize appeasement risk losing their moral authority—and their competitive edge. Harvard’s refusal to bend didn’t just protect its students; it reaffirmed the role of universities as defenders of inclusive, principles-driven education.
For leaders navigating political pressures, the takeaway is clear: when values are at stake, standing firm isn’t just ethical—it’s strategic. As one Columbia professor later admitted, “We thought we were being pragmatic. Turns out, we were just being naive.”
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Standing Firm Matters