The nine universities now facing Trump’s “compact” have recent history to guide them, with two clear, opposing examples: Columbia University, which caved to pressure and agreed to a settlement, and Harvard, which held firm and sued the administration. The path these nine institutions choose—resistance or settlement—will be a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle for university autonomy.
Columbia University’s decision to settle with the government in a previous dispute over campus antisemitism may be seen by the White House as a sign of weakness in the academic world. The administration might believe that other universities, when faced with similar pressure, will also choose the path of least resistance to protect themselves from a protracted and costly conflict.
On the other hand, Harvard’s aggressive legal strategy represents a model of defiance. By refusing to back down and taking the administration to court, Harvard signaled that it viewed the government’s actions as an existential threat that had to be fought, not negotiated away. This stance has made Harvard a symbol of resistance for many in academia.
The leaders of Brown, Penn, MIT, and the other six universities must now decide which precedent to follow. Do they seek a compromise, hoping to satisfy the administration while preserving some measure of their independence, as Columbia did? Or do they follow Harvard’s lead, viewing the compact as a hostile act that demands an uncompromising and potentially litigious response?
The White House is likely hoping for more Columbias and fewer Harvards. The strategy of offering a “sweetener” in the compact may be designed to make a settlement seem more palatable. However, the extreme nature of the compact’s demands may push these universities closer to Harvard’s position, convincing them that there is no middle ground to be found.
