{shortcode-459e052926b493229dc3af1315dcb721e18baf55}

Much has been said about the true motives behind the Trump administration’s assault on Harvard — from some claiming that it is the product of conservative activists who object to Harvard’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies to others arguing that it is one front in a wider campaign by the White House to stifle dissent.

These theories mask a much simpler explanation: It’s just good politics.

President Donald Trump’s greatest political skill is his ability to find culture war wedge issues that can distract and divide his political opponents. In doing so, he can depict himself as the champion of the sane majority while portraying the other side as radical and out of touch with the mainstream. He has used this strategy to propel himself to White House twice while maintaining a vise-like grip on the Republican party, even in defeat.

If you want to understand the true purpose of Trump’s war against Harvard, look no further than his other stunts that — regardless of their policy merits — are quite politically savvy.

His decision, for example, to deploy the national guard to cities to supposedly fight crime, tees up Democrats who legitimately oppose the decision as a gross overreach of federal power as soft-on-crime. His hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative approach to immigration is designed to highlight an issue that his opponents consistently struggle to respond to. Even his more symbolic actions — like pledging to rename army bases for Confederate generals — have been politically effective not because they have overwhelming support among conservatives, but because they distract Democrats from issues that more people care about — and that Democrats poll better on.

The crackdown on Harvard appears to be yet another one of these stunts. The White House is not pursuing this settlement because they see it as their only avenue to achieving conservative priorities in higher education, like eliminating DEI or achieving viewpoint diversity — Harvard is already making those changes without a settlement. They are likely not attempting to silence the University or its affiliates’ anti-Trump criticisms, as they probably don’t hold much cachet with the MAGA base — who most likely already see them as part of the ultra-liberal elite intelligentsia.

Instead, the administration’s actions seem designed to earn a decisive headline declaring that they have conquered the anti-American Harvard establishment. What better political win to demonstrate dominance over American society and potentially galvanize the Trump base going into the midterms?

Understanding why the administration is attacking Harvard is only step one; the next question is how Harvard should respond.

From a purely realpolitik perspective, in the short-run, there is no reason for Harvard to cave to Trump’s maximalist demands. A settlement, although it might expedite the process of resolution, would likely require extreme concessions and should therefore be regarded with much caution — especially if it touches on the core functions of the University, like admissions or hiring. Moreover, if last week’s decision is any indication, Harvard’s lawsuit has strong legal standing, further reducing the administration’s leverage over the University.

From a long-term perspective, however, it should be extraordinarily concerning for the University that attacking Harvard and higher education in general has become so politically advantageous.

On paper, Harvard should be a point of at least some pride for the American public; it is one of the nation’s preeminent institutions and a symbol of our country’s dominant higher education system. Research conducted here has cured diseases and made revolutionary technological breakthroughs. Every year tens of thousands of students from around the world clamor for the chance to study here.

The gulf between our University’s on-paper profile and present political popularity is a damning indictment of how far Harvard has allowed the media narrative to slip. In recent years, the University has failed to effectively advertise its achievements, while the press has overwhelmingly focused on Harvard’s most controversial issues — its defense of affirmative action, campus turmoil over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and plagiarism accusations that have roiled its leadership.

Harvard’s top priority should be to rehabilitate its public image by advertising its positive effects — from scientific breakthroughs made here to the University’s broader economic impact — which would help insulate itself from its current political woes.

Otherwise, we risk becoming yet another casualty of the culture war — a partisan football that is (at best) tepidly supported by Democrats and shunned by Republicans.

Henry F. Haidar ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Lowell House.