Harvard is Probably Going to Cave

…Unless Honor Saves Us

I am asked quite often, multiple times a day now, what Harvard will do in the face of the authoritarian extortion applied by the Trump regime. Will it continue to fight, or will they capitulate? People are asking because they understand the stakes: they see Harvard as a beacon of resistance in a civil society that is failing them during an unprecedented assault on our democratic system.

With Colombia’s (not unexpected) capitulation to the Trump regime, this question has become more urgent.

I hope I am wrong, but if I had to guess, Harvard will cave too.

Harvard will cave for the same reasons that authoritarians and extortionists win everywhere: they can inflict pain on individuals and individual institutions, and it is individually rational for each of us to pay the extortionist to end our pain. It is a classic collective action problem and faced with this problem, our freedom dies.

Of course, rich and powerful institutions like Harvard are in the best position to resist such attacks, but they are also the places where the government can inflict the most pain. In the words of Vonnegut, “so it goes.”

Sophie Park / Getty Images

Of course, we’d like these institutions to think long-term, not just consider the pain they are experiencing right now. But, perversely, this kind of thinking can also lead to capitulation because it can be rational to preserve the system: when you are on top and the extortionist says they will leave you on top if you just pay a relatively small bribe, you are willing to pay the bribe. And the institutional momentum of wealth and prestige is hard to overcome, leading to the same perverse rational logic: yes, kids will still go to Columbia even with its stain of capitulation because their degree will still be worth something and they will still meet other soon-to-be-important people. And kids will probably still go to Harvard when it caves. The leaders of these prestigious institutions are aware of this.

And we can convince ourselves we are doing the right thing, even being selfless, when we focus on our own institutions: leaders at Harvard have told me that they have a duty to preserve the institution. This duty surely feels more important when an institution has survived for centuries.

There is also a human aspect that contributes to capitulation. The people inside the institution, not the institution itself, are experiencing the pain. So, the people want the extortion to end. And, of course, if Harvard capitulates, life becomes a lot easier for those of us who work there, and we still get to go on calling ourselves Harvard professors and enjoying the prestige. Once again, the momentum of prestige is hard to overcome.

Talking to my colleagues, an increasing number seem to be accepting of a “negotiation” to end their pain. Many, of course, can find reason to believe they are doing the right thing. Some seem to think it is the mature thing to do, failing to recognize the situation we are in as a society.

Others have used the analogy of a lawsuit, saying that “negotiation” is often how lawsuits are resolved, but failing to recognize that, because lawsuits are the means at our disposal to challenge the government, we are then accepting that we must negotiate for our rights when the government attacks them—something we would never accept in the abstract. Some have claimed that a negotiation can be painted as a “win” for Harvard, therefore not seeming like capitulation, but failing to recognize that once you negotiate for your rights, you have already lost your fundamental dignity and are likely opening up a Pandora’s box of authoritarian abuse from which there may be no return.

Others simply accept that we are in a bad situation and just think this is the only way out, somehow convincing themselves that such a position can be compatible with academic freedom.

There are others who, rightly, point out that the pain of this extortion is born unevenly—that due to the unevenness of who relies on federal grants, some faculty are hurt more by a standoff with the government than others. Medical faculty, for example, who rely heavily on grants for their research, feel extreme pain, while the humanities have the luxury of standing on principle. But this, once again, is the inescapable rational logic of authoritarian extortion that allows it to kill our freedom. There is always somebody for whom the pain is greater and, therefore, for whom the need for the pain to end will also be greater. This is the same reason that the wealthiest and most powerful institutions are the ones most likely to capitulate. This illustrates the perverse way in which an authoritarian can pit us against one another, where some of us resent others for causing them to experience the pain of resistance. Talking with Harvard faculty, I already get the sense that this resentment is present.

And there are, of course, some people who are in ideological agreement with Trump. Who believe, for example, that Trump’s illegal actions are necessary steps to end anti-Semitism on university campuses. Putting aside the merit of this view (which I emphatically reject), you don’t impose your policy views by breaking the law. That’s not how democracy works.

In response to all these individual logics of capitulation, we must recognize that the externalities imposed by capitulation are undeniable: yes, it may help you find a way out of this extortion, but it legitimizes an attack on the rule of law and hastens the end of our freedom. Therefore, you have to ask yourself what you think is more important: your bottom line or what is right for society? I believe that we all know the answer to this: we teach our children not to think only about themselves, and we hold up as heroes those who put others before self. But when push comes to shove, we often fail to live up to this ideal. So it goes.

The logic of all of this is tragically difficult to overcome. Is there anything we can do? We can, of course, shame those who fail to stand up for our civil society. We can ridicule them. We can shun them. This is what I understand many people to be calling for, and I have said as much myself. But we will, of course, be reluctant to do so when the time comes. And our reluctance is understandable. Once again, the authoritarian puts us in the awful situation of having to choose between turning on our fellow citizens or standing up for democracy. In a free society, these are not the choices that our government should be forcing on us.

Ultimately, I think it is only honor that will save us. It is honor that causes people to do the irrational things that are good—that separates the fighters from those who flee in the face of danger.¹ Unfortunately, this sort of honor is not something on which we select for our institutional leaders.

I hope I am wrong. Sometimes there are variables—honor, for example—that will overcome the powerful logic that points to capitulation. We have to hope that Harvard and our other institutions have some of this. And it will be up to the rest of us to continue the fight, with or without them.

1. I take this point about honor from reading Robert Middlekauf’s The Glorious Cause. Middlekauf wrote about the characteristic of honor that separated the professional soldiers from volunteers. The professional soldiers would continue to fight even when they knew they would be killed or captured. The same individually rational choice was present for both the volunteers and professionals, but a sense of honor changed the behavior of the professional soldiers.