{shortcode-3a3932b8c5876f669e1a39ef3e6f5d2ea582a63c}

After political prosecution in the court of public opinion, Harvard has the opportunity to clear its name.

Congress — purporting to investigate Harvard’s handling of campus antisemitism and plagiarism allegations against former University President Claudine Gay — has demanded the University turn over formal documents and internal communications, warning they may resort to subpoenas.

Harvard should comply, though it must proceed with caution — a fair dose of skepticism is warranted for the most unproductive Congress in decades.

For one, congressional investigations of plagiarism allegations at private universities are far from quotidian. (One could be forgiven for imagining lawmakers have more important matters to attend to than ivory tower intrigue.)

For another, when it comes to crafting controversy, Congress’s trickiest operators have demonstrated a knack for squeezing water from stone, or rather scandal from standard.

However, as much as we fear handing over documents is tantamount to arming our University’s detractors with more culture war ammunition, we are even more frightened at the prospect of a Harvard that deepens public mistrust by failing to cooperate with Congress.

And make no mistake, social confidence has been forcefully shaken. Trust in universities was at a nadir even before the backlash to President Gay’s congressional testimony, a rare moment of bipartisan consensus that seemingly only antipathy towards Harvard could fuel. Now, our University’s public trust is displaying worryingly negative returns.

For an institution whose social capital is just as important as its endowment earnings, a cooperative posture — displayed for a national audience — is the sole solution to this concerning trend.

If Harvard can demonstrate that it has credibly handled accusations of antisemitism and plagiarism properly, it may just turn the tide of public opinion.

But if it refuses, Harvard will continue to be tarred as secretive — or worse, outright insidious – by the same ardent agitators who defamed Claudine Gay. Besides, Congress may soon serve up subpoenas compelling Harvard to hand over documents, robbing the University of the opportunity to claim the high ground by providing the documents without force.

Moreover, as a recipient of federal funding, we understand Congress’s interest in holding Harvard accountable for wrongdoing — accountability that could benefit us as stakeholders in the Harvard community.

Our University should be an inclusive and academically-upright community. If it failed to protect its Jewish students from discrimination or fairly apply its plagiarism standards, accountability in the public square will galvanize better leadership in Massachusetts Hall.

No matter what, our University’s approach must be guided by a commitment to transparency — one that has been sorely missed in recent months. The Harvard Corporation’s opaque attitude towards campus controversies has left observers bewilderedly playing logical fill-in-the-blank. Openness would be a welcome remedy.

Ultimately, Harvard should provide the documents Congress has requested, as long as it deems they can be submitted safely — without endangering students. In a climate of rising antisemitism and Islamophobia, privacy and prudence are indispensable virtues. Nevertheless, we expect Harvard to remain compliant with federal law.

This week’s contention between Cambridge and Capitol Hill is unlikely to bring Harvard any closer to solving the largest leadership crisis it has faced in recent memory. Yet the opportunity to dispel the reputation of an ivory tower shrouded in secrecy, and instead project an image of itself cooperating with its critics in pursuit of common goals is just about the only defense Harvard can mount against those with a higher ed hit list.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.