{shortcode-4a73d2bcfb728e62b08119c12111eaab9147884d}

This year, Harvard has been pulled in every direction — by Congress, donors, media, and its own constituents. What started as a crisis of leadership quickly became something deeper: a test of whether Harvard could govern itself at all.

In all the noise, one fundamental question remains unanswered: Who gets a say as to how Harvard is governed?

We have seen what happens when the answer excludes Harvard affiliates. When Congress demands a crackdown and the Harvard Corporation seems to comply.

But this year has also shown what happens when the Harvard community refuses to be intimidated. Faculty lawsuits led to University lawsuits, and voices across disciplines, generations, and identities rallied in defense of what this University ought to be.

In resisting the Trump administration’s attacks, we caught a glimpse of something rare: a university willing to speak with its own voice at a time when its very ethos has stood trial.

Who Gets a Say but Shouldn’t?

Over the past year, Harvard has fallen under siege, brought on not only by some of its failures, but also by many of its successes.

To its enemies, Harvard’s status as a global institution and cultivator of independent thought makes it a juicy political target. And in 2025, right-wing politicians have done their best to bring that target to heel.

From the moment President Donald Trump earned his return ticket to the White House, it was clear that higher education would be in the crosshairs. Harvard, the crown jewel of American academia, was primed to become an early victim.

We all knew the conflict was coming. With its vast power and influence, Harvard was not only poised, but obligated to lead the defense of academic freedom and democratic principles.

When the chaos arrived, it arrived swiftly: The government began dismantling diversity programs, cut research funds nationwide, and called for surveillance against international students. Harvard faced a stark choice: bend the knee and lose its integrity or stand firm and bear the costs.

We urged the latter. Again and again, we insisted Harvard could — and must — resist. We insisted that the attacks on certain diversity programs were fickle and opportunistic. That repression could be met with creative defiance. And that appeasement would buy us nothing.

We learned the lessons of Columbia University’s acquiescence — which seemed to win them nothing but further attacks. When Harvard finally stood its ground and sued the Trump administration, we applauded the move as a worthwhile stand.

By defending its autonomy, Harvard proved it could become the champion higher education so desperately needed. And yet, at key junctures, the University has acted as though Trump’s vision were its own.

Almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration, Harvard settled two lawsuits related to antisemitism. As part of the terms, Harvard adopted the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. We’ve argued, alongside many scholars and civil rights groups, that the definition conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel and thus chills pro-Palestine speech.

Shortly afterwards, Harvard amended its anti-discrimination policies and suggested controversial statements in academic work would only “ordinarily” not violate Harvard’s new anti-bullying standards. The ambiguity of this standard posed a worrying threat to speech.

Similar moves followed. In rapid succession, the University came after not one, not two, but three different academic departments and programs pertaining to Palestine. The Center for Middle Eastern Studies had its directors dismissed, the Harvard School of Public Health suspended its research partnership with Palestine’s Birzeit University, and Harvard Divinity School paused the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative altogether. Then the Palestine Solidarity Committee was placed on probation for a protest it did not officially organize — a move so draconian and opaque it smacked of pretext.

This is not how principled institutions respond to pressure. When Harvard trades external scrutiny for internal repression, the University doesn’t buy relief — it emboldens more attacks. It signals that the lever of intimidation is working.

Worse still, it forfeits the moral high ground that Harvard so badly needs. Mimicking the strong-arm tactics of our detractors only lends ill-intentioned critics legitimacy.

To win the battle for America’s future, Harvard must remain faithful to its values — the opposite of what Trump’s attacks represent. The University cannot afford to lurch from scandal to scandal, reshaping itself in response to every congressional inquiry or donor tantrum. When it ignores the voices of its constituents, that’s exactly what it does.

The question of who gets a say is not a sideshow. It is Harvard’s defining issue. A university that silences students and sidelines faculty becomes reactive, brittle, and beholden. A university that distributes power, though, becomes resilient.

Who Should Have a Say?

The exemplars of moral clarity are often found in our classrooms. When the administration waffled, faculty stepped up. The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors took the lead in suing the Trump administration over the attempted deportations of pro-Palestinian academics and students. They knew early on what was at stake: academic freedom and the soul of the University.

Our faculty are on the front lines of the struggle for intellectual freedom. When top-down closures or political calculations override their voices, our institution suffers. Harvard must empower faculty as guardians of its mission, not sideline them in times of crisis.

The easiest, most straightforward path to doing so is through the adoption of a faculty senate. At the very least, doing so would consolidate an important reservoir of opinion regarding the University’s governance. At best, a faculty senate could keep Harvard’s policies focused on ensuring our University remains academically free and in service of excellence. Amid the clamor of donors and headlines, faculty anchor the University’s mission.

Students, too, should play an increased role in shaping the decisions of our University. Any policy that affects Harvard often primarily affects students — we frequently navigate the uneven terrain between Harvard’s values and its operational priorities.

Students serve on the Honor Council, entrusted to adjudicate academic dishonesty among peers. And yet, unlike its peer institutions, Harvard College excludes students from its Administrative Board — the body responsible for certain decisions in student disciplinary cases.

That exclusion suggests the University sees student participation as ornamental. When it comes to shaping or enforcing the rules that govern us, we are kept at arm’s length.

That matters. Disciplinary policy cannot be altogether neutral. It determines how protest is policed, how dissent is punished, and which forms of student expression are tolerated. In an America where free speech can no longer be taken for granted, such decisions take on increased importance.

At Tufts University, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents abducted Rumeysa Ozturk, seemingly for nothing more than writing an op-ed — a chilling violation of civil liberties in broad daylight.

Harvard’s actions do not exist in a vacuum. When the University privilege certain speech, it sends a signal — to the government, to the media, to law enforcement — about which forms of speech are acceptable and which are punishable.

Faculty and students are not just stakeholders — we are stewards of Harvard’s values. They teach its classes, fill its lecture halls, and carry its principles into the world beyond campus. If this institution wants to defend academic freedom, it must start by trusting those who live it.

The Path Forward

As its lawsuits prepare to be litigated in court, Harvard faces a monumental task in standing up to a hostile government as the guardian of higher education. It cannot defeat the Trump agenda by mirroring its logic.

Policies shaped through dialogue with the people those policies will affect look less like crisis management and more like collective resolve. They hold up under scrutiny because they are built to be defended, not abandoned after scandals subside. They carry a legitimacy that cannot be undone by hostile politicians.

On a campus in dire need of unity, democratic governance is also a tool of cohesion. Students and faculty are far more likely to defend what they helped build as opposed to fighting edicts imposed on them from above.

For Harvard to survive this moment — and lead through it — it must reimagine who has a say. As Cambridge becomes the crucible for the values of education, Harvard must ask not what it can afford to lose, but instead what it must defend.

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.