Multiple former university presidents pointed out that the survival strategy for dealing with the Trump administration's intervention in school operations is resistance, defense, and litigation.

This week, Harvard University stood up to refuse multiple demands from the Trump administration; compared to the weak response from some Ivy League schools under pressure from the government a year ago, Harvard's counterattack represents a significant shift in universities' responses. Politico interviewed several former presidents who unanimously suggested to current university presidents that resistance, defense, and litigation are the only ways for schools to survive under the Trump administration.

Lee Bollinger, former president of Columbia University, said: "Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination absolutely need to be addressed, but the government is using these issues to deprive academic autonomy, and the school must step forward to defend itself; I believe the solution is to take it to court."

Bollinger also stated that universities should consider collective action to mobilize defense in court. However, the leadership of the Ivy League has experienced large-scale personnel changes in recent years, leaving new presidents little time to find allies to confront the federal government.

Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University and Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration, said last week to a group of students and alumni that Harvard's $53 billion endowment fund and strong alumni network are unparalleled assets for the university; this means it is best positioned to fight the government and protect its values.

Summers agreed that Harvard should not interfere in national politics, but neutrality should not prevent it from strongly defending its own values; "I believe that institutions like Harvard should make a strong response."

Phil Hanlon, former president of Dartmouth College, said that former university leaders dare to speak out because they know the difficult situation current presidents face and also want to defend the decades-old partnership between higher education institutions and the federal government.

Hanlon said: "If this partnership is broken, it will have a devastating impact on American competitiveness. I support any form of collective action to support or demonstrate the value of this partnership."

Mitchell Stevens, a professor at Stanford University, pointed out that there exists an "academic social contract" between universities and the federal government; universities receive government funding and support in exchange for contributing to the public interest through research, education, and innovation. However, "the new reality universities are accepting now is that the federal government could be their enemy rather than their friend."

Clearly, university leadership is at a moment without a script, ultimately turning a new page in its relationship with the federal government.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494481848907907599/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the 【Like/Dislike】buttons below.