{shortcode-2c6dd01a82a3e2e37da5e00140acbe52c7b439cb}

Up against a pugnacious Trump administration, Harvard has downsized to protect its coffers once again. And while the University is sure to feel the hurt, America will be the ultimate loser.

On Tuesday, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra announced that the FAS will admit Ph.D. students “at significantly reduced levels” this year in an effort to curb University spending. The move is the latest in a string of budget cuts Harvard has made as it mounts a defense against the federal government’s escalating attacks on higher education.

Given looming threats of federal funding cuts and the recent endowment tax hike, a contraction in Ph.D. admissions is equal parts regrettable and reasonable. Compared to other institutions — several of which have suspended graduate admissions entirely — Harvard’s effort to preserve its programs to whatever extent possible merits recognition.

In March, Harvard enacted a similar effort, instituting a University-wide hiring freeze on faculty and staff. As recently as last month, HMS announced it will decrease research spending by at least 20 percent by the end of the fiscal year.

These moves signal that the University is scouring its receipts and trimming wherever it can.

It’s good to see Harvard choosing quality over quantity in its graduate admissions — since, evidently, external forces have rendered it difficult to afford both. That being said, we would welcome greater clarity on how this particular decision was reached and, more importantly, which Ph.D. programs will be hit the hardest.

We’ve seen how fiscal belt-tightening can conceal unequal cuts before: In August, the University of Chicago — also in the Trump administration’s crosshairs — announced that it would pause admissions for all departments but one in its Arts and Humanities Division, alongside similar pauses for select programs in the social sciences, social work, and public policy. Its STEM programs were spared, it would seem.

Harvard must avoid following the same path. Disproportionately targeting the humanities and social sciences would not only betray the University’s stated commitments to the liberal arts — it would further darken the already dim future of academia. And so, while Harvard’s relationship with the federal government might demand financial austerity, the consequences of these measures must not be downplayed.

The effects will do damage both now and later: In the short run, a decrease in Ph.D. positions will weaken Harvard’s research and teaching ecosystem. In the long run, it will cut into academia and the nation’s entire intellectual pipeline — restricting the next generation of scholars, scientists, and thinkers from receiving their education and shaping the world.

The blame lies with Washington, not Harvard. The Trump administration’s campaign against higher education doesn’t just target universities; it threatens to unravel the very threads of excellence and innovation that have placed American research and academia among the very best.

Unfortunate as it may be, Harvard is wedged between a rock and a hard place. For now, all it can do is keep wriggling — and ensure that its cuts, however deep, are fair at the least.

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.