To Protect America’s Universities, We Need America’s Public

From investigations, funding cuts, to detaining students, the Trump administration is making good on Vice President J.D. Vance’s words that “universities are the enemy.”

The question is what universities should do about it.

While universities should defend themselves in the courts, in the long term, a successful case for the continued support of American universities will need to convince Republican policymakers, as well as the general public, of the following three points. First, American Universities are the engine of American prosperity. Second, Universities are not partisan actors. Third, Universities can police themselves.

Of course, to make this case, we also have to ensure that all three points are true.

The first point is an easy one to make. A recent viral tweet from University of California, Berkeley professor Pieter Abbeel asserted that students and postdocs from his lab alone — largely funded by Federal grants — co-founded 12 companies with a combined market value of hundreds of billions of dollars. Economists Andrew Fieldhouse and Karel Mertens estimated that government-funded research and development accounted for about 20 percent of private sector productivity growth post World War II.

Harvard affiliates have been the source of many breakthroughs and companies. These include the creation of one of the first programmable computers, the exploration of angiogenesis, the invention of new CRISPR technology, and the founding of companies such as Biogen, Microsoft, Facebook, and Moderna. By 2014, more Harvard alumni had received our military’s highest award — the medal of honor — than any other U.S. academic institution save West Point and the Naval Academy.

Universities should remind the public of these contributions, which have benefited the lives of Americans in both red and blue states. We should explain to policymakers that such innovations require sustained investment in research as well as an immigration policy that welcomes talented scholars from all around the world to study here.

The second point — that universities are not partisan actors — is more complicated. Over the last decade, the confidence of the American public, especially Republicans, in higher education has radically declined. It is no accident that the partisan skew of faculty nationwide grew in the same period. According to a Crimson survey, under 1.5 percent of surveyed Harvard faculty identify as conservative.

Universities must do better in their efforts to cultivate viewpoint diversity, from the faculty we hire and the speakers we invite to the content of our courses.

Yet, the perception that elite universities are some kind of Marxist indoctrination camp is widely off the mark. Courses that focus on issues such as “decolonization” or Palestine do exist, as they should, as should courses on opposing perspectives. However, they account for only a tiny fraction of the academic activities on campus.

Universities should assure the public and policymakers that their campuses are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. Toward this end, we should not let the tail wag the dog and allow the actions of marginal programs to tarnish the name of the whole institution. If some programs or faculty are more focused on activism than scholarship, then perhaps the place for them is not a university but a non-profit organization.

Regarding the third point, the federal government has a legitimate say in how universities are managed, as per Title IX and Title VI of the Educational Amendments and Civil Rights Acts. These have been used before by administrations to force policy changes on universities, including the 2011 Dear Colleague letter of the Obama administration.

Since October 2023, citizens and politicians have seen time and time again images of student protestors occupying buildings, disrupting classes, shouting both pro-Hamas and anti-semitic slogans, and getting away with no consequences. This is especially jarring given that over the last decade, universities have gained a reputation as places where any microaggression or offensive word, even in a private chat, could result in serious consequences, including suspensions or admission rescindments.

While faculty and students know the truth is more subtle — much of the daily life of the university is unaffected by protests, and most protestors are peaceful and don’t support Hamas — this impression is not wholly without basis. It also doesn’t help when faculty aid violators in avoiding consequences, as was the case when Harvard faculty voted for what was essentially a blanket pardon for all seniors who had their degrees withheld due to their pro-Palestinian activism or when Columbia faculty making disciplinary rules also themselves appeared to play a role in the encampments.

Universities should demonstrate that they can set and enforce clear time, place, and manner restrictions that enable students to express their positions without allowing them to disrupt university activities. If students feel they cannot make their point without causing disruptions, they should be prepared to face the consequences.

These are difficult times for academia. The Trump administration’s actions show little care for academic freedom or scientific progress. But I believe that if we make a positive case to the American people, and demonstrate our focus on our educational and research mission, we will ultimately prevail.

Boaz Barak is the Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science.