What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Standing Firm Matters
In 2017, Columbia University found itself at the center of a heated debate. The Trump administration had introduced policies targeting international students and scholars, including travel bans and visa restrictions. Like many institutions, Columbia initially chose a path of cautious cooperation, hoping to negotiate compromises that would protect its community without provoking backlash. But when those efforts failed to yield meaningful results—and even exacerbated tensions—the university faced criticism for prioritizing appeasement over principle.
Years later, as Harvard University navigated similar pressures, it took a different approach. By studying Columbia’s missteps, Harvard demonstrated that when faced with unreasonable demands, doubling down on institutional values—not capitulation—is often the wiser choice. Here’s why bending to political pressure rarely works, and what other institutions can learn from these examples.
—
Columbia’s Gamble: The Cost of Compromise
When the Trump administration announced its 2017 travel ban, Columbia scrambled to reassure its international students and faculty. Administrators privately lobbied government officials to exempt academic institutions from the policy. Publicly, however, the university avoided direct criticism of the administration, framing its concerns in neutral terms to avoid appearing “partisan.”
This strategy backfired. By refusing to take a strong stance, Columbia inadvertently legitimized the policy’s underlying assumptions. Critics argued that the university’s silence implied complicity, undermining its reputation as a defender of academic freedom. Meanwhile, students and faculty grew frustrated, organizing protests to demand bolder action. Columbia’s attempt to “play nice” left it isolated: It neither influenced policy nor preserved trust within its community.
The lesson? When governments impose unjust rules, institutions that prioritize access over integrity risk losing both.
—
Harvard’s Playbook: Clarity Over Concessions
Harvard faced a similar test in 2020, when the Trump administration threatened to revoke visas for international students if their schools shifted to online learning during the pandemic. Unlike Columbia, Harvard didn’t hedge. It joined a lawsuit against the policy within 48 hours, publicly condemning the move as “cruel” and “illegal.” The university also mobilized resources to support affected students, signaling that their place in the community was nonnegotiable.
This unapologetic stance paid off. Courts swiftly blocked the policy, and Harvard’s reputation as a principled leader was reinforced. More importantly, the university strengthened its relationship with students and faculty by proving it would fight for them—even against powerful opponents.
Harvard’s response revealed a critical insight: In moments of crisis, ambiguity is riskier than decisiveness. By acting quickly and transparently, institutions can shape narratives instead of reacting to them.
—
Why Appeasement Fails
The contrast between Columbia and Harvard highlights a broader truth: Cooperation only works when both parties share a baseline commitment to fairness. When one side operates in bad faith—using threats to force compliance—attempts to negotiate often backfire.
Consider the psychology at play. Authoritarian-leaning governments (or administrations) frequently test boundaries to gauge how much control they can exert. Each concession becomes an invitation to demand more. Columbia’s reluctance to criticize the travel ban, for example, may have emboldened subsequent crackdowns on student visas.
In contrast, Harvard’s refusal to yield disrupted this cycle. By drawing a clear line, the university forced the administration to either escalate (and face public scrutiny) or retreat. Predictably, the latter occurred.
—
The Power of Institutional Identity
Harvard’s success also underscores the importance of institutional identity. For decades, the university has cultivated a reputation as a bastion of free inquiry and global collaboration. When the Trump administration’s policies threatened those values, Harvard leaned into its identity—not away from it.
This alignment between action and ethos matters. Communities rally behind institutions that embody their ideals, especially during polarizing times. Columbia’s wavering, meanwhile, created dissonance. Was it a fearless defender of scholars, or a cautious bureaucrat? The ambiguity eroded trust.
—
Lessons for the Next Crisis
So, what can universities—or any organizations—learn from this?
1. Define nonnegotiables early. Institutions must identify which values they’ll defend at all costs. For Harvard, protecting international students was inseparable from its mission. Clarity here prevents hesitation later.
2. Speed matters. Delayed responses create vacuums filled by fear or misinformation. Harvard’s rapid legal action set the tone for resistance, while Columbia’s slower reaction allowed anxiety to fester.
3. Build coalitions. Harvard didn’t act alone. It partnered with peer institutions, legal experts, and advocacy groups, amplifying its impact. Collective action signals strength and isolates aggressors.
4. Communicate with courage. Neutral language might feel safer, but moral crises demand moral clarity. Harvard’s blunt criticism of the visa policy resonated because it matched public sentiment.
—
Conclusion: The High Stakes of Principle
Columbia’s experience offers a cautionary tale: Compromising core values to avoid conflict often deepens divisions and weakens credibility. Harvard, by contrast, proved that institutions gain more by standing firm—even when it’s uncomfortable.
In an era of increasing political polarization, universities will face more tests of their resolve. Those that embrace their role as defenders of equity and truth—not passive negotiators—will emerge stronger. After all, if cooperation doesn’t move the needle, why play by someone else’s rules?
The next time a government tries to strong-arm an institution, Harvard’s playbook provides a roadmap: Lead with conviction, protect your community, and let the critics fade into irrelevance.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » What Harvard Learned From Columbia’s Mistake: When Standing Firm Matters