Elite US universities aren’t doing enough to save democracy

We’ve long accepted that soldiers must risk their well-being and even their lives to preserve American freedom and democracy. Especially at a time like this, when freedom and democracy are under threat from within the country, the same is true of people in civilian walks of life. But what about universities?

Higher education institutions depend on and promote the values that underpin democracy in their teaching and research. Top universities are well equipped to defend freedom through expression, advocacy and litigation. The more wealth, influence and talent they have, the more capable they are of doing so, as Harvard University has shown. And Harvard, unlike some of its counterparts, has been praised for standing up to President Trump’s attacks on its independence.

But Harvard and other prominent universities should take risks not only to defend themselves against Trump but actively oppose his broader attacks on the constitution and democracy.

This might sound like the opposite of what most universities have done lately. Universities have been rediscovering political neutrality, reaffirming their commitment to the principle that schools should not take sides in policy debates. As the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report put it in 1967, “The university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.”

Yet the report also acknowledges that “from time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”

Universities can’t achieve their mission of teaching and searching for the truth under a dictatorship. If we lose our constitutional rights and freedoms, colleges will cease to remain true to their purpose.

Under authoritarian rule, universities become mouthpieces for the regime. They are pressured to teach history in ways that appease autocrats. Economists avoid publishing unflattering economic data. Scientists don’t conduct research that might challenge a dictator’s worldview. Many of these tendencies are already evident in America.

Colleges should also not abandon their core mission of teaching and research. And, as the Kalven Report suggested, it is not appropriate for them to lobby for a wish list of policies of their choice. But it is a different matter when the basic freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are under threat – and, with them, universities’ values of free inquiry. Institutions should be willing to stake all on the fight for our constitutional system: the system that makes them possible.

Practically, this means initiating lawsuits to protect constitutional rights, not just themselves. Litigation requires deep pockets and expertise, which elite universities have in spades; despite Trump’s endowment tax, Harvard’s endowment remains well in excess of $50 billion. They also likely have standing to sue on a range of issues where government actions could harm them.

Scholars and academic centres at elite colleges can research and uncover abuses of power and corruption. Universities can establish massive, nationwide educational campaigns about the Constitution. They can even offer to hold classes on individual rights for ICE agents and other law enforcement. Professors can instruct students and society on how to protest ethically: how to engage those they oppose with respect even if it is not reciprocated, so as not to have their activism exploited by the administration as an excuse to introduce even more repressive measures. 

Universities should also admit and cultivate more students who will sacrifice some of the income they might gain from a career in finance or consulting to engage in civil society efforts to safeguard democracy. They can further harness the expertise of their alumni networks to this end, instead of using them solely for networking and fundraising. Harvard, for instance, has an ultra-wealthy segment of alumni who donate more than $1.3 billion (£970 million) a year (more than $600 million of it in current-use gifts) and could easily give more. Some might even be seeking a practical vehicle to resist authoritarianism while shielding themselves from direct confrontation with the administration.

Elite universities could argue that their research is too valuable to endanger by opposing the regime. But much of their research could be conducted elsewhere, and all of it would be at risk under unbridled authoritarianism. As for the risk that no university could make a significant dent in authoritarianism by itself – maybe not. Yet it can set a much-needed example for others to follow, from peer educational institutions to individual citizens.

These institutions, of course, have deeply ingrained habits of putting themselves and their leaders ahead of their mission. It was sobering, for example, to see Harvard reduce doctoral admissions in the sciences by more than 75 per cent to address budget shortfalls following Trump’s grant cancellations and visa restrictions instead of streamlining its operations. And elite university presidents are not generally chosen for their daring leadership so much as for their ability to maintain the status quo and stay out of controversy. Few want to be remembered for presiding over the decline or demise of a venerable institution.

But charitable foundations routinely debate whether it is more effective and virtuous to spend all their assets to do the most good quickly or to use only a small fraction each year so they can continue in perpetuity. Higher education institutions should also evaluate whether their continued existence is always the most important goal.

Their leaders will aver that although the political trajectory looks bad, the US has many guard rails around its democracy. Yet many of them, from law firms to media companies to universities themselves, have already capitulated. This has emboldened a president who claims he had the 2020 election stolen from him to threaten to take land from a fellow Nato member and to take the lives of peaceful protesters – not to mention launch an illegal war in the Middle East.

At a minimum, elite university presidents should be going to their boards now to persuade them to be ready to fight with all their legal, moral and civil power to defend constitutional norms if Trump crosses one of many red lines, from openly defying a Supreme Court ruling to undercutting election procedures in the midterms.

We salute individuals willing to put their livelihoods and lives on the line for their democracy. Will any university have the moral ambition to realise that such a sacrifice is not so unthinkable for institutions, too?

Martin Skladany is professor of law at Penn State Dickinson Law at Pennsylvania State University.