{shortcode-f1e6aa38cd55be3ea6847a52c982ad3fc1087158}

Apparently, Harvard believes that the best way to “uphold its values” is to quietly rename them.

When Trump sent Harvard a list of demands — among them a call to dismantle all of the University’s DEI programs — Harvard sued. But on Monday, the University renamed its Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging anyway, to the ambiguously titled office for “Community and Campus Life.”

Today, the Editorial Board defends this change as a shrewd maneuver to preserve Harvard’s public image. But because the Board inflates the controversy over DEI and denies Harvard’s reluctance to stand behind its values, we dissent.

First, DEI isn’t nearly as toxic in the public opinion as the Board suggests. A January YouGov poll shows DEI programs hold a +19 net favorability among U.S. adults — with 48 percent of US adults viewing them favorably and just 29 percent unfavorably. And that’s despite the torrent of misinformation about DEI flooding news feeds and timelines. Imagine what those numbers might look like if we actually marketed DEI.

The real problem isn’t overwhelming backlash; it’s misinformation and political attacks. For example, critics paint DEI as a financial sinkhole when in fact, these programs use only a tiny sliver of university budgets. This isn’t a cultural crisis — it’s a communications failure.

The more controversial — though still certainly reasonable — policies associated with DEI, like race-conscious admissions and the use of diversity statements in hiring, Harvard notably no longer practices. Yet, Trump’s April demand letters still begs for their elimination.

To be frank, most Americans aren’t following Havard anywhere near closely enough to track the names of our offices or what policies we have or have not implemented. Instead, they’re listening to politicians like Trump who characterize our campus as a “Liberal mess” overrun by “woke, Radical Left, idiots.”

As long as conservative leaders make false claims about schools like Harvard, we’re going to have a public relations problem. The way to win against authoritarian attacks isn’t by prioritizing optics — it’s by standing up for our values. There’s a reason why donations surged after the University announced its lawsuit against Trump’s ill-founded federal funding cuts.

There is a strong public appetite for someone to stand up to the White House, and Harvard’s lawsuit satiated that demand. Unfortunately, this name change flies in the face of these efforts to protect democracy from reactionary political pressure. How can the University continue to profess its support for the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion, while being too afraid to name an office after them?

The Board argues that diversity doesn’t require a DEI office. On this we agree completely. Our peers are right to point out that diversity at Harvard will persist whether or not OEDIB exists. However, there’s a reason for the equity, inclusion, and belonging at the end of the acronym.

It doesn’t matter how diverse our student body is, if students face barriers that prevent them from fully participating in academic and social life on campus — like discrimination in professional settings or inaccessible dorms and bathrooms — we’ve got problems. The purpose of having an office dedicated to DEI is to recognize that such barriers exist and to devote resources to solving them, improving life for everyone on campus.

Not only does the Board recognize that OEDIB does good work, it also entirely neglects to detail how exactly any of OEDIB’s programs spark division. While we agree that there may very well be room for improvement, the name change far from accomplishes this.

Renaming the DEI office doesn’t just obscure its function and cloud our values; it suggests there’s something to hide, something shameful about equity. It surrenders the narrative.

Tossing the label of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” might be politically expedient for now. But it will not solve Harvard’s public relations crisis. Instead, it only muddies our moral compass.

Mahmoud M. Al-Thabata ’27, a Crimson Editorial Editor, is a joint concentrator in Social Studies and Modern Middle Eastern Studies in Dunster House. E. Matteo Diaz ’27, an Associate Editorial editor and Crimson Diversity and Inclusivity Chair, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Applied Mathematics in Leverett House. Heidi S. Enger ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Eliot House. Zakiriya H. Gladney ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Statistics in Dunster House. Dalevyon L.J. Knight, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Chemistry concentrator in Adams House. Salma O. Siddiqui ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Lionel Hall. M. Austen Wyche ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Economics concentrator in Winthrop House. Jasmine N. Wynn ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is a History concentrator in Winthrop House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.