{shortcode-56aed8be3bf82ecdf17248b38ddcb75d38f9866b}

Harvard’s latest DEI makeover demonstrates that the best offense is a stalwart defense.

On Monday, Harvard announced two key changes to its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives: It will rename the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging to “Community and Campus Life,” and it will no longer fund or host affinity celebrations during Commencement. Given Washington’s grievances with all things DEI, one may assume Harvard is merely doing what some of its compatriot institutions have done — accede to Trump.

Because of Harvard’s unique, full-throated rejection of Trump’s demands, the new moves are far from an empty gesture of submission. Instead, they represent a practical shift in Harvard’s approach, helping to both better define the work of its office and to insulate itself from unnecessary criticism. The changes will shore up Harvard’s image while retaining the more uncontroversial functions of DEI.

As Trump’s incursion against higher education has progressed, schools like Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania have abandoned the language of DEI in appeasement of the White House amid threats of federal funding cuts.

With its filing of a lawsuit against the federal government, Harvard proved its willingness to fight the Trump administration and its wildly overreaching demands — so why make conciliatory schemes now? With a legal battle underway, there is no value in giving in — Harvard has attempted to preserve its independence. These decisions aren’t about appeasing Trump — they are about fighting him.

Like it or not, DEI — or any permutation of those three letters — is controversial. Recent polling suggests that Americans are deeply divided on DEI, with a slim plurality supporting its elimination. After a year and a half of abysmal public relations, the last thing Harvard needs is to further invite criticism from half the American public. What’s more, we don’t need an office labeled “DEI” to have diversity on our campus.

As the White House makes demand after demand, Harvard needs every bit of public goodwill it can muster — seeking to be less divisive could be decisive. We wager many would be surprised to learn that some of the work done by Harvard’s DEI office seems remarkably uncontroversial and worth supporting, as we noted in an editorial last year.

Previous initiatives include a pre-orientation program that gives incoming first-generation and low-income first-years guidance on navigating Harvard and funding for more accurate medical textbooks for various body types that represent the wide range of human body types. There is no reason for such work to fall victim to undeserved criticism, and a rebrand helps ensure it won’t.

As it continues its remodeling of the office, Harvard should strive for increased transparency. Thus far, the University has been unforthcoming with details, only offering language hinting at changes to come. It should tell us precisely what its offices — DEI or by another name — do in order for judgements to be made.

Luckily, we have already seen some judicious pruning of Harvard’s diversity work: the recent announcement that the University will no longer host or fund affinity graduations. To be clear, places for students to gather within their communities are undeniably a good thing — different groups face different challenges at Harvard, and such spaces are a key resource for many. Also, affinity celebrations are not intended to override or replace Commencement — they simply provide a space for students and their families to celebrate.

But Harvard shouldn’t fund them directly. The University specifically allocating funding to affinity celebrations necessitates a litigation: What groups and identities are deserving of their own ceremony? Every Harvard student is unique, so where do we stop?

We hope that the renaming of Harvard’s diversity office and the end of University-funded graduation ceremonies are a signal of a shift in DEI policy. Without divisive branding, common-sense programs can continue without having their name tarred and feathered in the court of public opinion.

By removing fuel from the fires of controversy, Harvard has increased its odds in the public relations sweepstakes. Let’s hope it wins big.

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.