Trump’s war on Harvard is the natural outcome of left-wing overreach
Trump’s war on Harvard puts academic freedom at risk, but it’s the predictable right-wing overreaction to left-wing overreach, writes Lewis Liu
I was born in rural Hubei Province, China, shortly before my father left for Belgium on a scholarship funded by what is now the European Union. After earning his master’s degree there, he received a PhD scholarship to the United States to study financial economics. That’s how we ended up in New York. None of this would have been possible without his place in China’s elite “Class of 1977”, the first university cohort admitted after the Cultural Revolution, when ten years’ worth of students competed for a narrow window of opportunity as higher education reopened.
Growing up as first-generation Chinese immigrants in America, we understood the transformative power of education – not just for our family, but for society at large. I am a product of both the American Dream (Harvard, New York) and Global Britain (Oxford, London), with Harvard being the most formative part of my path into adulthood.
Growing up hearing stories of the Cultural Revolution, I’m now afraid for the future of the American university. The current White House administration’s demands to Harvard are a gross violation of the Constitution, an extraordinary attempt to dictate what gets taught and how. The administration has demanded the university screen international students for those “hostile to the American values”, end DEI programmes and agree to government-approved external audits of the university’s curriculum. I’m proud that Harvard became the first major university to push back, after other Ivy League institutions caved. As I read Harvard’s response letter, I felt, for the first time in a long while, that America might actually be okay.
Why should we care about Harvard?
But this isn’t just about Harvard. If the world’s richest, most prestigious, most powerful university can’t defend academic freedom, who can? If Harvard falls, what does that say about the future of American higher education, or the country itself? Even before this latest crisis, Nature published a poll showing 75 per cent of scientists in the US are considering leaving. America’s long-term strength has always been grounded in technological dominance and innovation. What happens when the scientists walk out?
We’re already seeing signs that Harvard’s pushback is having an impact. Over the weekend, the White House claimed the letter of demands had been sent “without authorisation”: a classic case of gaslighting, meant to portray Harvard’s response as an overreaction. But how was it “unauthorised,” given the explicit pressure the government has since applied? That pressure has since included threats to ban all foreign students and revoke Harvard’s nonprofit status through the IRS. Without authorisation, indeed.
But let me be clear: I’m not writing this because I believe Harvard, or any American university, should continue operating as it has over the past decade. There are deep, systemic issues within academia, many of them driven by the left. And on that point, I have some sympathy for the Trumpian critique of American university culture.
The campus war between the left and right
I started at Harvard in 2004 and became the university’s first joint concentrator (Harvard’s term for major) in Studio Arts and Physics. To pursue this kind of double major, you had to submit a proposal in your second year explaining how the two disciplines could be meaningfully combined, with supporting evidence. I came from an elite but traditional public school (American term for state school) and wasn’t yet culturally attuned to inclusive language. In my proposal, I used phrases like “mankind” and “it is man’s desire to create”, unaware of the gender implications. I simply thought of “man” as shorthand for “humanity.” My adviser, a well-known artist who was also openly gay, gently pulled me aside and suggested I reconsider my phrasing. He explained, respectfully and without judgement, that I might choose more inclusive language. That was it – no drama, no spectacle. I adjusted, and over time, became more culturally aware. Fifteen years later, I’ve heard of students being severely disciplined for making the same mistake at Harvard or elsewhere.
I remember the exact moment when extreme left-wing ideology started making intellectual dialogue feel “unsafe”. I was in Leverett House Dining Hall during my second year, debating string theory with a suitemate, when someone suddenly announced: “[Harvard] President Larry Summers just got fired.” Summers had resigned after suggesting that while average academic performance (e.g. standardised test scores) between men and women was equal – if anything, slightly favoring women – males had higher standard deviations. That is, men were overrepresented at both extremes: more Nobel Prize winners, but also more criminals. He noted similar patterns existed in other mammals. Some viewed his comments as anti-feminist, and that perception ultimately cost him his job.
In defence of academic freedom
I’m not here to litigate the data or the conclusions. I’m here to say that we should be able to have nuanced, open debates about difficult topics, especially in universities. That moment marked a shift. Academic freedom narrowed, and a tide of left-wing orthodoxy began sweeping across American campuses.
With the rise of ‘woke’, we’ve seen an increase in both antisemitism and discrimination against right-leaning viewpoints. What we’re witnessing now is the sadly predictable right-wing overreaction to left-wing overreach. Both extremes are toxic. Both threaten what makes universities matter. A university should be a place of nuanced, fearless debate.
So yes, Harvard is absolutely right to stand up to Trump. But it must also change. It doesn’t need a bloated DEI bureaucracy that polices left-leaning orthodoxy as it does today. Want to improve diversity, equity and inclusion? Redirect that budget to financial aid or research funding for underserved communities. Want to promote progressive values? Do it through respectful, thoughtful conversation, like my art professor did, and not through ideological witch hunts.
Whether under cancel culture from the left or authoritarian threats from the right, universities must reclaim their role as sacred spaces for free, unencumbered and courageous learning. Our democracy desperately depends on it. At the entrance to Harvard Yard, a gate bears the inscription: “Enter to grow in wisdom”. I hope Harvard prevails in defending its constitutional rights.
But I also hope it reforms itself: so that the ideal of open, nuanced debate can find firm footing again, both within its halls and across America. On the way out, that same gate reads: “Depart to serve better thy country and thy kind”. That mission has never felt more urgent.
Dr Lewis Z Liu is a founder, investor and AI scientist