Harvard stood up to Trump. Our top universities could not afford to be so brave

Harvard University has been praised for resisting sweeping demands from the Trump administration – an apparent act of courage defending academic freedom and social justice amid political and financial threats.

Threatened by the loss of more than $US2 billion in federal funding, Harvard refused to dismantle diversity programs, restrict student protests or cooperate with immigration enforcement. But is it really just an act of courage?

Look closer and a more calculated picture emerges. Beneath the principled rhetoric lies Harvard’s formidable financial power, legal acumen and a political calculus. With a $US53.2 billion endowment ($83.54 billion), the university can weather the financial fallout, rally donors and mount a robust legal defence.

Sydney University earned 42.6 per cent – nearly $1.5 billion – of its revenue from international student fees in 2023.Credit: Oscar Colman

Multiple US institutions are challenging Trump’s crackdown under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, arguing the administration bypassed due process. A successful court challenge could have the funds restored. Legal experts suggest Harvard is anticipating a favourable court ruling.

There is also a political strategy at work. With US Senate elections set for 2026, Harvard’s resistance may position it well under a future administration.

In contrast, Columbia University chose compliance, caving to Trump’s demands – only to face unprecedented federal oversight regardless. In this light, defiance is not only braver but smarter, as appeasement has proven futile.

For Australia, the real question is: could any Australian university withstand similar pressures? With Peter Dutton adopting Trump-style policies and rhetoric, this is not hypothetical but urgent. The education sector – fostering knowledge, critical thinking and empowered graduates – is a preferred target for right-wing populists.

The answer is sobering. Unlike Harvard, most Australian universities lack financial buffers. The entire Australian higher education sector, valued at $48 billion – the country’s largest services export – is worth just over half of Harvard’s endowment.

Students on the Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The university’s refusal to bow to Trump demands has plunged it into one of the gravest confrontations in its history.Credit: Bloomberg

Even the Group of Eight (Go8) – Australia’s leading research-intensive institutions – are deeply reliant on government policies. The Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s centralised university funding under federal control, introducing performance-based funding. Since then, government grants have remained important, while international student fees have become critical.

In 2023, the University of Sydney earned 42.6 per cent – nearly $1.5 billion – of its revenue from international student fees. Government grants contributed just 9.6 per cent. Together, these politically sensitive streams made up more than half of its income. For the sector, the pattern is similar.

International students comprise 35 per cent of enrolments at Go8 universities; Sydney’s are the highest at 47 per cent. This over-reliance poses serious risks. Recent visa restrictions have already strained finances. Proposed caps on international students could further destabilise the sector.

Australia’s centralised university sector gives the federal government broad powers to set funding conditions – including curriculum, performance targets and fees – under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. This opens the door for future governments to link grants to ideological demands.

Many Liberal politicians already accuse universities of promoting “woke indoctrination”. Meanwhile, they scapegoat international students – who occupy just 4 per cent of all rentals while bankrolling universities and boosting the economy – for housing unaffordability.

Australia invests just 1.68 per cent of GDP in research and development – well below the OECD average and far short of the government’s 3 per cent target. This leaves universities underfunded and reliant on unstable income. Some Trump policies pose a direct threat to Australian universities. In 2024, they received about $400 million in US government funding, now at risk.

The damage is already visible. A recent Nature study paints a bleak picture. Australian universities are slipping in global rankings as collaboration and research funding decline. Fewer than one in five would recommend an academic career, citing high levels of burnout, bullying and job insecurity. This erosion of talent is at risk of accelerating due to ongoing funding cuts.

A compounding issue is the metrics-driven approach to university management, another legacy of the Dawkins “revolution” – which even John Dawkins now calls “completely out of date”. Since then, universities have been incentivised to maximise measurable outputs: publications in prestigious journals, competitive government grants, enrolments of fee-paying students and completion rates.

These metrics can be manipulated and this risks undermining educational quality, institutional autonomy and research integrity. As University of Sydney sociologist Raewyn Connell has noted: “Since no neoliberal government, Labor or Coalition, is going to put tax money into even one Australian university on a scale that would make it look much like Harvard, the real effect of the league-table rhetoric is to provide a permanent justification for the vice-chancellors to increase fees and trawl for corporate money.”

The result is a sector under pressure with limited autonomy. A future government with authoritarian leanings could tie funding to ideological compliance – curbing DEI initiatives, reshaping curriculums or restricting protest. And unlike Harvard, Australian universities lack the financial, legal or political capital to resist.

To protect academic freedom and institutional independence, the sector needs real structural reform. This includes diversifying funding to reduce reliance on international student fees and ensuring performance metrics cannot be weaponised. Most importantly, academic freedom must be legally protected – just as Germany enshrines it in its constitution.

Australia should also strengthen industry-university partnerships (common in Europe but rare here), philanthropic giving and greater public investment. Tax reform could help ensure that wealthy individuals and big businesses – whose tax burdens have declined for decades – pay their fair share to fund public education.

Harvard reminds us that defending academic freedom requires not just courage but financial resources, legal protections and institutional independence. Australia’s higher education sector is already stretched. In 2023, 25 out of 39 universities ran at a loss (up from just three in 2019). Real funding for domestic students fell 8 per cent in a decade, with sector-wide losses of $1.2 billion.

If we are serious about our universities, we must rethink how they are funded, decentralise control and embed stronger protections for institutional autonomy.

Harvard’s stand should be praised but not romanticised. It was enabled by privilege, legal insulation and political strategy. If we want Australian universities to stand firm in the face of ideological pressure, we must strengthen their foundations now. Because if the screws are ever turned here, we will lack not courage, but capacity.

Raffaele Ciriello is a senior lecturer in business information systems at the University of Sydney.