First They Came for Columbia

Like many autocrats before him, Donald Trump has launched what could be a devastating attack on universities.

Over the last week, the Trump administration has cancelled $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University and $800 million in grants to Johns Hopkins University.

Both schools were on a list of 10 universities (including Harvard) that the Department of Justice announced it was investigating over politicized allegations of antisemitism. The Department of Education subsequently launched a similar investigation into 60 universities.

And last week, the administration arrested a former student seemingly not for a crime but for his political speech on campus. Trump, who has pledged to punish universities that permit “illegal protests,” called it “the first arrest of many to come.”

So far, America’s leading universities have remained virtually silent in the face of this authoritarian assault on institutions of higher education. That must change. Harvard must stand up, speak out, and lead a public defense of our freedom to speak and study freely.

Autocrats — both left-wing and right-wing — always attack universities. The public rationale varies. Some, like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, reportedly accuse universities or students of supporting terrorism; others, like pro-government outlets in Viktor Orban’s Hungary, accuse them of working for foreign interests; still others, like Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in Mexico, accused universities of supporting “neoliberalism” and corruption.

But these are pretexts. Universities are independent centers of ideas and often prominent centers of dissent. Autocrats are allergic to sources of dissent, so they almost invariably seek to silence, weaken, or control them.

The Trump administration is no different. Its claim to be fighting campus antisemitism rings as hollow as Ortega’s reported claim to be fighting terrorism in Nicaragua’s leading Jesuit-run university. The administration has weaponized the fight against antisemitism as a means to another end: punishing and weakening universities.

Most universities — including Harvard — have responded to these attacks with strategies of self-preservation. They are lying low, avoiding public debate (and sometimes cooperating with the administration) in the hope of mitigating the coming assault. To our knowledge, no major university leadership has publicly denounced the attack on Columbia or Mahmoud Khalil. In the face of an open assault on a peer Ivy League institution and basic principles of free speech, Harvard remains silent. With American democracy on the line, the University has crawled into a protective shell.

Not only is silence in the face of mounting authoritarianism morally objectionable, but, as the Columbia case suggests, it’s not working. Columbia’s leadership made repeated concessions to right-wing critics, only to be the first to come under attack.

Remaining silent will not protect us — but it does come with at least two major costs.

First, Harvard’s failure to speak out discourages other, more vulnerable universities from taking action, which undermines our collective defenses. If Columbia or another university confronts the administration on its own, it will lose. If America’s nearly 6,000 universities and colleges launch a campaign in defense of higher education, odds are that Trump will lose.

Someone must lead this collective effort. And if Harvard and other leading universities remain in their protective shells, there is a good chance that no one will.

Second, and crucially, silence cedes the public debate. Public opinion is not formed in a vacuum. The social science research is clear: In the absence of a countervailing message, a one-sided debate will powerfully shape public opinion. As long as he faces no public counter-argument from leaders of higher education, Trump will punish universities and pay no cost in the court of public opinion. If Harvard and other universities make a vigorous defense of higher education and principles of free speech and democracy, much of the public will rally to its side.

Our ability to conduct research, teach, and speak freely is under threat. This may be an existential moment for higher education. Colleges and universities are a key part of the fabric of American society. What we do is critical to the U.S. economy, technology, public health, and scientific advancement more generally.

Americans have a stake in the success of institutions of higher education. Important stakeholders include businesses and their CEOs, hospitals and their physicians, public schools and teachers, parents, alumni, and elected officials. But many of them fear raising their voice. Harvard has the stature to mobilize them. It also has the financial and institutional strength to stand up to mounting antidemocratic attacks.

As schoolchildren, many of us read the German pastor Martin Niemoller’s poem “First They Came.” Written just after the Holocaust, Niemoller’s poem highlights the moral and practical cost of allowing fear (or indifference) to prevent us from speaking out when others are targeted.

We must learn from the past. We cannot remain silent in the face of authoritarian attacks on our peers, even if they have not yet come for us.

Ryan D. Enos is a professor of Government. Steven Levitsky is the David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and a professor of Government.