{shortcode-7196e75140b701fb560bcdf947f0ad7a2cd57410}

The Ivy League exerts tremendous influence on the entire landscape of American higher education — so why would tuition be any different?

This, essentially, is the question posed by congressional Republicans in their investigation into potential antitrust violations by Ivy League universities allegedly conspiring to hike tuition prices — and it’s a question to which the Editorial Board hardly has an answer.

Today’s editorial completely glosses over the real impact that Harvard and the entire Ivy League’s high tuition may have on the rest of American higher education, dismissing the compelling arguments of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee as just another Republican witch hunt against Harvard. As such, I dissent.

While the Editorial Board rightly commends Harvard’s individually generous financial aid, it seems to neglect the foundational reason for Harvard’s generosity: its eye-wateringly high sticker price. For the low-low price of more than $80,000 a year, a student without financial aid can enjoy the Harvard undergraduate experience.

Yes, it is true that students with a household income under $100,000 attend for free and those with less than $200,000 do not pay tuition — but we should focus on why Harvard and its Ivy League peers charge such high amounts in the first place, not what they do to bring down the price.

No one denies that Harvard is generous with its financial aid, and I myself am proud to say that I can attend Harvard because of this generosity. But the Editorial Board spends little time engaging with the actual argument of the letter sent to Ivy League Presidents: Ivy League Tuition prices set the tone for the entire higher education market in the United States.

The thesis of congressional Republicans’ argument relies on the principle of “umbrella effects.” Essentially, the House and Senate Judiciary Committee suggest — among other things — that by setting their own tuition so high and keeping their class sizes so low, the Ivy League keeps their output low and price high. This pricing then creates a price umbrella under which tuition at other schools can be artificially elevated.

On more than one occasion, lawsuits have been filed alleging that other elite colleges and universities have violated federal antitrust law, conspiring to keep their financial aid low. Even if these institutions deny wrongdoing, these previous cases emphasize that the Editorial Board must engage directly with allegations of Ivy League collusion.

By hiding our disengagement with Congress’s argument behind allegations that republicans are acting in bad-faith (don’t get me wrong, I certainly believe that congressional republicans are attacking Harvard in bad faith in some instances), the Editorial Board ignores an actual, compelling argument against an arrangement which benefits no one in America.

While Harvard may be able to offset its high prices with some of the best financial aid in the world, the Editorial Board fails to recognize Harvard’s potential role in making college expensive for students across the country. We must acknowledge the role the Ivy League has in setting the tone for American universities and realize, in this case, that congress has a point.

Mac M. Mertens ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Classics and History double concentrator in Mather House.