{shortcode-1d1d97fbf2fb0dd184efa0e84e24768fdbc12c7c}

On Nov. 9, a group of Senate Democrats negotiated a deal to end the longest government shutdown in American history. As Harvard continues its negotiations with the Trump administration over federal control of University governance, it should learn from Senate Democrats’ mistakes and avoid a similar, unnecessary capitulation.

There are, of course, meaningful differences between the two negotiations with the Trump administration. Senate Democrats have distinct means — Senate procedure and a larger bully pulpit — and ends — gaining political capital and, hopefully, benefitting their constituents. Senators are elected officials, while Harvard is a private institution that answers to its faculty, students, and governing boards.

But despite these differences, both face a shared dilemma: how to negotiate with an administration that has repeatedly shown itself to be an unreliable counterpart with bad faith tactics. For Senate Democrats, it was for an extension of Obamacare tax credits, and for Harvard, our academic freedom and independence from federal overreach. Both are using their limited leverage in the face of an overreaching, punishing administration. Both are courageous efforts.

That is why the Senate Democrats’ decision matters. But they caved. Eight Senators broke the 60-vote filibuster to end the pain of the government shutdown in exchange for a promise to hold a vote on the healthcare credits in December.

As Ezra Klein writes, what makes the Senate deal so strange is that Senate Democrats were winning. Most voters blamed Republicans for the shutdown, Trump’s approval rating fell to its lowest point since retaking office, and Democrats won elections across the country on Election Day.

Harvard should learn from that mistake, because it is also winning in the court of public opinion. A new inter-university program called the American Higher Education Barometer released a report in October collating public opinion polls from across the country on high education. They found that 64 percent of Americans oppose federal cuts to science research and 70 percent to healthcare research.

One Morning Consult poll from May found that Harvard’s favorability and unfavorability rates both increased by four percentage points. The people forming opinions about Harvard during its fight with Trump are largely doing so along partisan lines, with Democrats more likely to favor the University. Still, Harvard holds a net favorable rating among Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

These numbers show that the Trump administration has failed to convince the public that universities deserve cuts and federal oversight, and has insufficiently demonized Harvard to win our fight in the court of public opinion. That failure gives Harvard important leverage. The University does not need to fear isolation or hostility from the public when it picks a battle with the administration.

The first critical lesson from the Senate’s deal is to recognize your leverage. A premature compromise signals that targeted political pressure works. If Harvard folds, other universities will be targeted next, weakening academic freedom nationwide.

The second lesson concerns internal politics. Senate Democrats are now facing backlash from their own base. Similarly, Harvard should not ignore the inevitable backlash from students, faculty, and alumni if it appeases federal overreach. Trump tries to fracture his opponents; Harvard must learn to play to its base.

The third lesson is that Harvard must play the long game and prioritize academic independence over any temporary reduction in political tension. It cannot make its decisions like a Senator anxious about an upcoming midterm election. It must consider the decades and centuries to come for the country’s oldest university. Just as the deal may hurt Democrats everywhere, the wrong deal with the Trump administration can hurt Harvard for decades.

Some will argue that compromise is necessary to protect essential funding or avoid harsh punishments. But negotiation only works when there is a baseline of trust, and this administration has proven that it cannot be trusted.

As professor Derek Miller warned Harvard back in June: “An agreement you make with this administration is not worth the paper it’s written on.” The Senate deal is grounded in the wishful thinking, the naive attitudes of politics as usual, that Harvard must avoid.

Harvard must negotiate deliberately, transparently, and from a position of confidence. It has existed for nearly 400 years. It should act like an institution preparing for the next 400.

S. Mac Healey ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Lowell House.