America Won’t Beat China by Beating Harvard

Harvard’s global relationships are worth protecting. So are its values.

This year, Harvard has reported over $163 million in foreign gifts and contracts. Funding from Switzerland came in first, totaling nearly $42.7 million from 16 transactions. Second up were sources attributed to China, giving close to $27.9 million in 53 transactions, trailed by the United Kingdom at over $26.6 million.

These figures arrive as Harvard’s foreign funding faces growing federal scrutiny. In July, the Department of Justice began a compliance review investigating whether Harvard violated civil rights law by supporting financial aid programs with donations from China.

Let’s be clear: The Trump administration’s interest in Harvard’s foreign donors has little to do with good-faith concern for national security and everything to do with its broader crusade against the University.

The funding disclosed does not establish that any university has bought influence at Harvard. Nothing publicly reported suggests that donors dictated University policy or compromised research. Instead, they suggest exactly what we’d expect from the University: a global profile that attracts a network of donors.

But even if Harvard has nothing to hide, the scrutiny raises a question the University could practice answering: What role does Harvard play in the competition between the United States and China? Here’s how we think the University should present itself.

Beginning with international students, the University should profess the value of attracting the world’s brightest minds, including students from China. They strengthen Harvard’s classrooms and laboratories.

Harvard shouldn’t forget, however, that it introduces students to American values. The University should lead by example on free speech, open inquiry, liberty, and democratic participation. When the institution lets students experience those principles in practice, they carry them into the countries they return to.

This is one of Harvard’s key contributions to American democracy. We should make clear to our Republican critics that closing the University off to international students would squander it.

And at the same time, Harvard should be ready to respond to the risks of openness. How does Harvard respond to risks of intellectual property theft? How can it protect research involving defense technology or artificial intelligence? Harvard should address national security concerns without surrendering its international character.

With federal pressure likely to intensify — even under a hypothetical non-Republican administration to follow — the University should get ahead of the conversation.

To really lay it on, Harvard can point out that a leading arena of competition with China is research. And yet, Washington is weakening the institution that runs the fastest.

Harvard recently lost its longtime first-place position in the Nature Index. Many of the schools climbing various university research-output rankings, including the institution now ranked first by Nature, are Chinese universities.

At the same time, the Trump administration has tried to freeze or terminate billions of dollars in research funding and repeatedly threatened international enrollment. Its latest attempted visa restrictions threaten to make it harder for international students to stay and contribute to the nation’s research ecosystem.

It doesn’t take a foreign policy analyst to see that the White House’s policies aren’t making America more competitive. They push researchers abroad, disrupt the work of American laboratories, and thin the stream of doctoral graduates prepared to leverage their expertise.

Harvard should grapple seriously with the challenges posed by U.S.-China competition — but Washington should recognize that the call is coming from inside the house.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.