When They Go Low, We Go DEI

Trump is coming for DEI. Will Harvard let him take it?

President Donald Trump’s months-long attack against diversity, equity, and inclusion has culminated in an ultimatum threatening to revoke over $8 billion of Harvard’s funding if it does not comply with his demands. In a Harvard-wide reply, University President Alan M. Garber ’76 refused Trump’s demands, and for that, he deserves credit. Yet, Garber’s response fell short of the full-throated defense needed in this moment.

Not long ago, Harvard seemed staunchly committed to advancing DEI.

The University was the face of defending affirmative action in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case; it allocated $100 million to the Legacy of Slavery initiative; Harvard’s presidents, including Drew G. Faust and Lawrence S. Bacow, weren’t afraid to stand up to the political powers that be. Harvard was, for a time, higher education’s champion. Basically, DEI was in vogue.

Now, that enthusiasm has flagged — and it is up to Harvard to return itself to that higher standard.

Disappointedly, Harvard hasn’t met the bar. Garber’s letter, while undoubtedly brave, also seems to appease Trump in several instances. At no point did Garber defend the value of diversity, equity, or inclusion — except to say that Harvard will expand “intellectual and viewpoint diversity,” in line with Trump’s demands. Furthermore, Garber implicitly acquiesced to the Trump Administration’s interpretation of SFFA v. Harvard, agreeing that the University will not “make decisions ‘on the basis of race.’”

Importantly, the interpretation propagated by Trump’s Administration is a dubious extrapolation of the original decision, which concerned only college admissions. Rather than agreeing with this new and larger limitation, Garber could have reiterated that the University’s DEI programs serve all students — the same argument made by the Dean of Students Office.

If the University wants to show that it cares about diversity, it needs to do more than just say no to Trump.

While Harvard’s half-hearted claims to support diversity, equity, and inclusion help somewhat, they are negated by its actions that appear to comply with Trump’s demands — both reactively and preemptively. For example, in December, after Trump’s election, the Harvard School of Dental Medicine ousted its assistant dean who oversaw DEI.

Moreover, the University’s lack of support for DEI is not solely due to Trump. For the two years since April 2023 — more than a year before Trump’s election — the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ associate deanship for DEI has been vacant. As of February, the FAS hasn’t even begun searching for a replacement.

Of course, DEI is not merely a set of policies or job positions — it is a system of values. And while the Editorial Board is correct that Trump’s executive orders cannot take away our ideas, it begs the question if diversity, equity, and inclusion are still ideas Harvard values.

Rather than letting DEI be destroyed, Harvard should step up. As the richest university in the world, it has a unique moral imperative to lead this fight and push for progress. The University’s claims to support diversity fall flat without tangible action.

If Harvard truly wants to show that it supports DEI, it must do the bare minimum — and then some. It should start by filling its empty DEI positions while also investing in institutional projects. This includes acting to protect international students, fully supporting (not firing) the staff of the Legacy of Slavery initiative, and finally — after more than 50 years — creating an ethnic studies concentration.

DEI has become a demonized, institutionalized, corporatized buzzword, but let’s not forget what it actually stands for. It’s easy to say one is opposed to the vacuous initialism of DEI — or at least to let it fall to the wayside in favor of other pressing concerns. But Harvard has to decide — does it care about diversity, equity, or inclusion?

I would define DEI in a similar way to how Jane Fonda described being “woke:” giving a damn about other people. Unless Harvard is willing to say that it does not care, it must act to support DEI. But until our University makes its support public and concrete, we shouldn’t assume it does.

The question isn’t whether Trump can take DEI from Harvard. It’s whether Harvard is willing to give it up.

Matthew R. Tobin ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Government and Economics in Winthrop House.