Staff Reports
Harvard University, known for its elite status and liberal leanings, is experiencing a sudden bout of introspection following President-elect Donald Trump’s resounding victory in the 2024 elections. President Alan Garber has reportedly urged faculty members to reconsider their messaging strategy, signaling a potential pivot toward a less antagonistic approach to conservatives. The shift seems to stem from ample feedback about the university’s perceived disdain for anything right of center—much to the delight of conservative critics who have long lambasted such attitudes as out of touch.
Garber’s recent closed-door session with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was an attempt to connect the ivory tower to the realities faced by real Americans. It’s been suggested that he noted the university’s communications strategy flopped harder than a fish out of water—indeed not surprising, given that few who are sane can stomach the knee-jerk, anti-conservative rhetoric that often seeps out of academia. His acknowledgment of meeting with 40 members of Congress during multiple trips to Washington indicates not only a desire to mend fences but a realization that bipartisan frustration with Harvard is a real thing.
The president’s remarks about embracing public criticism with “empathy and humility” suggest a significant departure from the typical “elitist know-it-all” vibe that tends to radiate from Harvard. In the midst of this political landscape, Garber sees much of the electorate’s disdain for higher education as an explicit rejection of elitism—who could argue against that when scores of average Americans are grappling with issues about their day-to-day lives while being lectured by professors living in centuries-old mansions?
Harvard President Has a Message for Faculty After Trump Win https://t.co/gAZvXd0BHx
— Tom Anderson (@ThosAnderson) December 16, 2024
One must ponder, though, how this newfound commitment to empathy will translate in reality. While Garber calls for a more understanding and inclusive environment, the institution has yet to lay out a concrete plan on how to rein in the predominantly liberal messaging that has typically flooded campus life. Perhaps the faculty can spend less time roasting conservative viewpoints during seminars and more time addressing the concerns of the taxpayer-funded students who feel ostracized on their own campus.
Meanwhile, as Harvard rolls out this diplomatic approach, the specter of the incoming Trump administration looms large. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, tapped as the new leader of the National Institutes of Health, hinted that there may be implications for funding based on how universities rank in terms of academic freedom. This could pose a significant threat to institutions noted for their hostility toward conservative thought. It remains to be seen if Harvard will take this seriously, but considering its privileged position, some might say it’s time for a reality check—or at least a comedic skit reflecting on how the establishment learned to play nice with its former enemies.
