{shortcode-8d0af4b6edaff2a2a22449558c7fa386acbe6a4a}

Like arsonists blaming the fire department, Republicans are accusing Harvard of making college too expensive.

Before much of the fracas of the last couple weeks, Congressional Republicans launched an antitrust investigation into Harvard and other Ivy League universities, alleging they colluded to drive up tuition prices. The inquiry demands years of documents on pricing and aid.

Absent the legal question, the claim seems — at first glance — to hold water. The sticker price to attend Harvard has soared to a staggering $86,926, a figure higher than the median U.S household income as of 2023.

But for many at Harvard, that price tag is for show. Thanks to robust — if imperfect — financial aid programs, low- and middle-income students pay far less, or nothing at all. Harvard’s model benefits from charging the wealthiest students more to help subsidize the rest.

That model continues to expand, raising questions about how, exactly, such alleged collusion drives aid down. Harvard College recently announced that students from families earning less than $100,000 — a large proportion of Americans — will attend Harvard for free. Those from families earning under $200,000 won’t pay a cent in tuition.

For the ultra-wealthy — whom schools like Harvard disproportionately serve — $87,000 is a drop in the bucket. Their paying full price could help fund the education of students who can’t.

This high-tuition, high-aid model isn't a sign of inaccessibility — to the contrary, it helps make accessibility possible. By scaling aid with income, Harvard’s financial aid spares many middle-income families from an unhappy medium where students earn too much for federal aid but too little to afford college outright.

This isn’t to say that the investigation is entirely without merit. While Ivy League schools like Harvard serve a distinct demographic and fund far more research than the average American university, their high sticker prices may still exert upward pressure on tuition across the sector, particularly at other private institutions that offer far less financial aid.

But in the context of the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on higher education — zeroed in on Harvard and the Ivies in particular — it is hard to see the investigation as a good-faith effort to make college more affordable.

The timing, the target, and the rhetoric all suggest a motive more political than principled.

To Republicans interested in tackling the very real problem of college accessibility, we recommend you take a break from gutting the Department of Education to target the many real culprits of the affordability crisis: legacy admissions that help lock out low-income students, underfunding of public universities, and dwindling federal aid available to students in need.

Actions speak louder than words. And these actions make one thing clear: this isn’t about affordability. It’s about power.

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.