Dissent: Pointless Statements Won’t Protect Us From Trump

Institutions love to talk — and it’s not hard to see why.

Today — in a piece I almost entirely agree with — the Editorial Board denounced the spine-chilling arrest of an international student at Tufts University whose only crime seems to be writing a pro-Palestine op-ed in a student newspaper. I disagree with the content of her op-ed, but as a student opinion writer, this is scary — and particularly troubling considering the crucial role that our opinion pages play in campus discourse.

Yet the Board’s advice to Harvard is, in part, misguided.

My colleagues call for the University to release a statement that condemns the Trump administration’s attack on higher education, the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement onto college campuses, and a general crackdown on free speech. All three are fully deserving of condemnation. But what exactly does a statement accomplish?

In short, nothing good.

In a world where the Trump administration is cutting universities’ federal funding left and right, any defiance from Harvard comes at a cost. The University has a responsibility to its students, faculty, and researchers to be prudent when risking further funding cuts.

Still, prudent defiance does not mean no defiance. Some forms of resistance — like legal action to protect the core values and mission of the University — are worth the cost. Standing up to the Trump administration is sensible when Harvard is actively fighting illegitimate arrests or deportations in court. But mere statements upon statements upon statements serve no one except those who already agree with them.

Indeed, this stance is emblematic of a larger problematic trend — a focus on statements and symbols over implementing actual change. The pattern has been pointed out in our pages —from decrying Harvard’s once-relentless political statements to criticizing pointless land acknowledgments that do nothing to address underlying injustices. Likewise, statements that hurt the University’s relationship with a powerful, capricious White House are damaging and unproductive, doing nothing more than make us feel good about ourselves.

Empty statements are the easy way out, but they harm our ability to do real good. Instead, let’s take the hard road — it’s the only one that can lead to real change.

Rohan Nambiar ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Mathematics and Economics in Leverett House.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.