{shortcode-d9e972e126bfe1d3c53049266f2b252fac8b61f5}

Negotiations between Harvard and the Trump administration have stalled over the issue of trust, with some in the government arguing that an independent monitor is needed to micromanage Harvard. This would raise serious concerns about academic freedom.

But it also brings up a bigger question: Why is the government so distrustful of Harvard?

It might have something to do with things that Harvard people say and do. For example, Harvard Law Professor emeritus Laurence H. Tribe ’62 said that Harvard is intelligent enough to be “subtle” in evading a Supreme Court decision on identity-based discrimination. This does not build trust. President Donald Trump notices such things, and said “Harvard wants to fight, they want to show how smart they are, and they’re getting their ass kicked.”

So, how can Harvard build trust? It can do so by moving away from an identity-based approach and becoming proactive about fixing problems.

Harvard has begun to resolve some of the problems that Trump has cited, though in ways that are slow and not entirely convincing. The most notable fix was centralizing discipline to overcome the paralysis that left the University unable to promptly or sufficiently punish students for the occupation of University Hall or the Gaza encampment. However, so far this semester Harvard has shown little appetite to enforce its clearly stated rules when they are openly violated.

Building trust has been difficult for Harvard because it hasn’t had a good understanding of what the government is trying to achieve. The government’s concerns are not about antisemitism per se, and not about destroying Harvard per se. The goal is to destroy the intersectionality “pecking order.” Although Harvard sees such identity-based approaches as helping groups deemed oppressed, the government sees these as violations of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it made clear in its communications with Harvard.

Harvard comes across as too cocooned to understand the government’s concerns, and as a result it does things that diminish trust. One jarring example was the recent training for students on antisemitism. Harvard brought in a Jewish group that took an intersectionality approach, but with Jews getting a higher position in the pecking order. Digging deeper into the rut of intersectionality is a tone-deaf response to the government’s concerns. What is needed is an identity-independent approach.

A deal that is good for both sides is possible. Trump touts this prospect as “‘mindbogglingly’ HISTORIC.” Working with Trump, however, can be unnerving because he is sloppy and uses maximalist demands and tactics. To make a good deal, Harvard needs a deeper understanding of Trump’s concerns. Some very articulate members of the Harvard community can help convey such an understanding in a style more culturally normal at Harvard, notably Bill A. Ackman ’88 and former Crimson President Ira E. Stoll ’94. The Crimson is also helping with such understanding by its move to bring back “respectful debate” in its pages.

The key to a good deal is for Harvard to restore trust, and the way to do so is to fix problems. This effort needs to be robust, including fixing some little known appalling situations such as reported ideological suppression about racial topics at the Kennedy School and the shocking takeover of the Harvard Divinity School graduation ceremony by political activism.

Some will argue that Harvard should fix issues only as part of a final deal with the government. That approach is both faulty and a mirage. It is faulty because it fails to establish trust, and thereby invites micromanagement. It is a mirage because there are surely pre-existing problems that will become public and create new crises. If Harvard fixes new problems proactively, before they become public, that creates trust. If Harvard fixes new problems only after they become public, that feeds the perception that Harvard needs to be micromanaged.

The best way to promote a good deal with the Trump administration is to combine touting the great things at Harvard with a determination to fix the things that are not great. This is how to build the trust needed for Harvard to work together with the government to make universities great again.

Dr. Michael M. Segal ’76 is a neurologist and neuroscientist and a member of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard.