Congress continues to demonstrate that they’re more interested in treating Harvard like a political punching bag than governing our country.

Last week, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce subpoenaed documents from the University’s top brass related to Harvard’s handling of claims of campus antisemitism.

Because today’s editorial suggests that Harvard’s only course of action is capitulating to the demands of a Congress more focused on finding fault with the academy than with actually addressing antisemitism, we dissent.

Don’t take our word for it. The Editorial Board has already ably made the case — again, and again, and again, and again — that congressional Republicans are hardly operating with the best interest of Jewish students or the schools we attend in mind.

If they were, perhaps they might have spent last December’s hearing discussing antisemitism — the ostensible topic at hand — instead of interrogating university presidents about trans athletes, antifa, Black Lives Matter, diversity and inclusion efforts, and other right-wing bogeymen.

Perhaps those same investigators who dress up as zealous crusaders in a fight against antisemitism might also have avoided echoing antisemitic conspiracy theories or endorsing candidates who praise Hitler.

And perhaps, these members might have at least maintained a veneer of good-faith rather than admitting their prejudged conclusions about the “hostile takeover of postsecondary education by political activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators.”

Yet, from a party in which the racist and antisemitic “great replacement” hoax is practically a plank of the platform, we would be naive to expect much more.

Unfortunately, in prescribing almost complete cooperation with Congress, today’s editorial demonstrates that precise naivete.

Our campus is afflicted by a multitude of real problems — antisemitism, anti-Palestinian racism, Islamophobia, opaque governance, and institutional suppression of free speech come to mind. University leadership must address these issues with the seriousness and urgency they deserve.

Congressional Republicans have demonstrated, however, that they are uninterested in aiding that pursuit. Instead, all signs point to a continued excavation for evidence that Harvard has “gone full-on woke.”

The Board suggests that the motivations behind congressional subpoenas should not meaningfully shape Harvard’s response. Certainly, transparency would be a welcome sea change from the approach of the last few months.

We, however, do not share the Board’s faith in the potential sincerity of the U.S. Congress. Republicans’ not-so-thinly-veiled motives have real bearing on what the investigation releases to the public.

And if the last few months have revealed anything, it’s the ability of right-wingers to co-opt campus controversies to score political points.

Today’s editorial appropriately draws the line at student safety in suggesting what Harvard should hand over. As long as the specter of doxxing looms large, the Board correctly points out that protecting identifying disciplinary records is non-negotiable.

Still, keeping students safe is the bare minimum. In the face of a federal fishing expedition, Harvard can do more than quietly acquiesce.

Our University should, of course, comply with the law. But before heeding Congress’ commands, Harvard’s lawyers should faithfully negotiate on the scope of subpoenaed documents. Its leadership can and should utilize their platform and publicly voice well-founded concerns that Congress is more set on vengeance than veracity.

Harvard is a campus divided, fractured in a way that no congressional investigation can mend. Least of all this particular investigation, evidently bent on attacking higher education and perhaps — more insidiously — diverting attention from unspeakable devastation in Gaza.

Cooperating with a good Congress could help Harvard. But this Editorial Board should know better than to pretend we have one.

Saul I.M. Arnow ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House. Violet T.M. Barron ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.