{shortcode-2b602b5ecd099ecabf78abb91e9fbe7a395d62d1}

We got our funds back — but we may never convince all of America that we deserve them.

Harvard notified faculty this month that the majority of funding frozen by the Trump administration had been restored. The news comes a month after U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that the federal government’s withholding of the grants was unconstitutional.

We won this time, but federal funding at Harvard is peering over the edge of a precipice. Unless we can reconcile our nature as an elite institution with the anti-elite American public, we may not be able to keep funds flowing for the next three years, let alone beyond.

The return of federal grant funding is a welcome development, but we’re hardly out of the woods yet. Before Burrough’s ruling, Trump vowed to “IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN” if things didn’t go his way.

And a more serious threat looms. A few weeks after the verdict, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services initiated proceedings that could bar Harvard from transactions with the federal government based on a finding that our University acted with “deliberate indifference” towards antisemitism on campus. Harvard must prepare for this eventuality and look elsewhere for answers.

Even if we try tightening our belts for the next three years and hoping Trump's successor is more sympathetic to the merits of academic research, the fact is: Pandora’s box has been opened.

University federal funding — a norm for decades — has become a political weapon. Trump invited the American public to question why their taxpayer dollars are going to an institution most of them will never visit. If we continue to rely on the whims of voters to secure large portions of our funding, we could find ourselves in the same position five, 10, or 50 years down the line — regardless of what party the president belongs to.

To their credit, Harvard’s leaders have made valiant efforts to draw attention to the real public benefits of our research. But we doubt our PR problem persists because of anti-research sentiments among the broader public. Indeed, a recent survey showed a strong majority of Americans oppose Trump’s funding cuts.

Attacks on elite higher education aren’t driven so much by opposition to education as by a turn against elitism. The majority of the benefits our University bestows fall only to the few who succeed at being admitted. Harvard — by definition as a highly selective, elite institution for the leaders of the future — leaves a large majority of our country behind.

Our University isn’t alone in grappling with this structural dilemma. The Trump administration just offered nine prestigious universities a “compact” to secure their own federal funding for the future.

Still, as long as Harvard is, well, Harvard — the peak of an unpopular ivory tower — its funding will make a useful political football for lawmakers hoping to score points with the public.

The Trump administration’s attacks are troubling enough. But there’s no guarantee they’ll be the last, even if the White House changes hands.

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.

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