{shortcode-cd0638eaa366198cc7ef82fd4eaffec5f5cfa5f5}

Soon, Harvard will choose a new president. But first, it must figure out how.

Unfortunately, a different president might pose a problem for Harvard. In just over a month, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump will return to the White House, beginning a period of unsettling uncertainty for American higher education. As the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body, begins reviewing its selection process for University President Alan Garber’s successor, one thing is clear: higher education needs a champion.

During his short five year tenure, former University President Lawrence S. Bacow showed how Harvard’s president can be a national advocate for higher education. He led the defense of affirmative action at the Supreme Court. He admirably and adroitly defended free speech — sometimes in the face of immense pressure to do otherwise. When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement threatened to force international students to attend in-person classes during the pandemic, he sued the federal government — and the directive was rescinded.

Since Bacow stepped down, Congress has launched an all-out assault on higher education. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce publicly grilled three university presidents about their protest guidelines and subpoenaed thousands of documents from multiple Ivy League universities — an unprecedented move. Vice President-elect JD Vance introduced a bill to raise the endowment tax on universities to 35 percent. Rep. Elise M. Stefanik ’06 pushed legislation to strip certain universities of their tax-exempt status entirely. Now, the incoming U.S. president has explicitly promised retribution against educational institutions.

This is the landscape that will define Harvard’s next presidential search — and the Corporation cannot afford to choose wrong. Harvard needs a president who will fight for its soul — someone who understands that it isn’t just Harvard’s own reputation on the line, but higher education writ large.

The next president must fight to preserve spaces where speech can be freely exchanged, where research can proceed without political interference, and where students can learn without fear. The next president must have both political acumen and moral courage.

To that end, it’s worth remembering how past choices were made — and if future choices should be made differently.

As the Corporation reviews its selection process, it must resist the temptation to overcorrect. Yes, former University President Claudine Gay’s presidency was fraught with grave shortcomings and ended in resignation, but, as Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81 noted, her selection in the first place wasn’t a mistake.

Gay’s credentials were outstanding: top honors at Stanford and Harvard, groundbreaking scholarship, and successful leadership as Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The selection committee saw these merits clearly — so clearly that the choice was obvious and the search process notably brief.

The lessons from Gay’s presidency are about vetting, not values. The Corporation should absolutely conduct more thorough reviews of candidates’ scholarship and public speaking experience. But it shouldn’t abandon the core criteria that made Gay an excellent choice: academic distinction, administrative experience, and a deep understanding of Harvard’s mission.

Let’s be clear: Harvard is not going to find a hero to save us. As Dean of Harvard College Rakesh Khurana pointed out in his first book, corporations often choose CEOs based on their charisma, hoping they will be “a Corporate Savior.” This not only wrongly limits who is considered for the position, but also sets unrealistically high expectations. The same holds for university presidents.

The next president of Harvard will face extraordinary challenges, but they won’t face them alone. No single leader can stem the wave of anti-intellectual sentiment in America. That will require a unified front — from faculty, students, staff, alumni, and allies across higher education.

Some critics will never be satisfied. The goal isn’t to win them over with charisma or rhetoric, but to defend Harvard’s independence despite their opposition. After all, a university without critics is a university without conviction. Harvard must improve where necessary, but it cannot let its detractors dictate its destiny.

As some may rightfully fear, perhaps Trump or Congress will cut Harvard’s federal funding if we don’t comply with their political agenda. This is a real possibility that will have a real cost. But if Harvard’s next president cannot stand up for the University’s centuries-long educational project, what use is a tax-exempt endowment anyway?

To the Harvard Corporation: Choose someone who loves this institution enough to fight for it — and someone who understands that leading Harvard means making enemies. The future of higher education depends on it.

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