Harvard turns lemons into lemonade…for now

On Friday, April 11, Harvard University received a list of demands from the Trump regime, including changes to leadership and governance, merit-based admissions and hiring, discontinuation of DEI initiatives and disciplinary policies to address protests on campus. In essence, Harvard President Alan M. Garber wrote to the university community on Monday morning, the government was targeting individuals because of their ideological views. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” wrote Garber.

Harvard’s decision came with a hefty price tag–the federal government froze $2.3 billion in funding for the university, part of a total of $9 billion that the government is “reviewing”.

Harvard is not the only high-profile American university to face such threats–Columbia University has faced the wrath of the Trump regime, allegedly for failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests last spring. Cornell, Princeton, Northwestern and Brown Universities are all facing funding cuts.

But Trump has spared his real wrath for Harvard, slashing funding and threatening to cut off their foreign student enrolment and to revoke their tax-exempt status. For any smaller institution, such unprecedented moves could spell bankruptcy. But Harvard, founded in 1636, is not only the oldest highest education institution in the country, but the world’s richest, with an endowment of $53 billion. 

And Harvard is in fighting form, slapping back at Trump’s funding cuts with a rapid and slick public relations campaign. The university retooled its main university website with a bold and blunt message: “Research Powers Progress”. The gist–universities are critical hubs for interdisciplinary research and discovery that leads to concrete improvements in life for ALL human beings. And the primary link takes you directly to a by-the numbers breakdown of Harvard’s research funding, a direct response to the government’s allegations on antisemitism, and Garber’s immediate and clear statement: “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Media around the world took notice, and so did alumni and donors. Within two days of Garber’s email to the community, Harvard received nearly 4,000 online donations, totaling $1.14 million. The biggest surge came just after Trump announced the funding cuts at 7:30 pm on Monday night–-between 8 p.m. and midnight, 1,000 gifts poured in. Overall, seventy-seven percent of the gifts have been less than $250. While I fully admit that I am not a fundraiser by training, theory suggests this points to a willingness to give, even if the donor may not have significant funds, or it could be the gateway to a larger future gift. And Harvard is also reaching out to its largest donors requesting their aid in this fight. 

According to Harvard, eight of its alumni signed the Declaration of Independence. Today, the targeted attacks of the federal government are challenging the foundations of that document, worrying the Harvard community and the higher education sector worldwide. Harvard is facing a challenge unlike anything in its 389-year history. And it may take every scrap of Harvard’s history and financial heft to fight the smackdown Trump hopes to deliver.

Should academia exit X? Why is your institution still on Twitter/X?

Brands love to talk to their audiences, so when social media platforms began to offer a new, engaging and measurable way to connect with their stakeholders, brands rapidly flocked to new accounts on Twitter, Facebook and other sites in the early aughts. Since then, the social media landscape has mutated rapidly, spawning influencers, paid partnerships and increasingly polarized users based on algorithms and misinformation.

Higher education communicators recognized early that their primary demographic–young adults–loved social media, and flocked to create content on platforms targeting potential students, such as Instagram, Vine (remember that?), Snapchat and TikTok. At the same time, as older demos built community on other platforms, such as Facebook or LinkedIn, those became an opportunity to reach parents, alumni, government, industry and potential donors. 

But one platform has taken a journey unlike any other. Launched in 2006 by Jack Dorsey, it saw exponential growth by 2012, rising to 330 million users by 2019. Twitter’s blue bird logo was everywhere, and the word “tweet” permanently entered the lexicon. Significantly, governments and politicians became active on Twitter, and in Canadian higher ed, a ministerial visit or funding launch became a perfect opportunity to tag a member of parliament or post a pic of the president shaking hands with a local mayor.

Yet, something started to curdle in 2020, when the pandemic struck. Twitter use soared, but misinformation and disinformation became a growing problem, and the service started fact-checking and marking tweets that were problematic. Elon Musk acquired Twitter in 2022, and triggered a series of platform changes including account monetization, the removal of account pronouns and an AI chatbot. In 2023, Musk rebranded the site as “X” as accusations of unfettered hate speech, antisemitism and the targeting of journalist accounts grew. Increasingly, X was accused of pandering to extreme alt-right voices on topics including vaccination, the Jan. 6 coup attempt and transgender rights. Twitter had become toxic.

For higher ed institutions with a presence on Twitter/X, engagement rates in target audiences have been dropping or have plateaued at low levels for several years. Are our students or prospective students on X? Absolutely not. They’re on TikTok, Instagram or whatever the next thing is. Are our community partners or donors there? Possibly, but they are likely treading carefully in the increasingly murky online space, worried about the impact on their own brands. Are our faculty there? Some are (and may be keeping their institution’s media relations teams up at night) while others are actively protesting the increasingly right-wing, extremist voices on the platform and have started to migrate to other sites, like Bluesky or even alternate subscription platforms like Substack.

So, is your university or college still actively posting to Twitter/X–and why? Perhaps you’ve identified the key government or community accounts that you still want to interact with, and believe there is sufficient ROI to balance the potential risk of existing of an increasingly hostile environment. Maybe you’re betting on posting the most neutral, benign content possible, in hopes of avoiding the wrath of the trolls lurking beneath the platform’s surface…and you have clear guidelines and practices in place for when they inevitably pop up. Or, are you simply posting on X because…it’s a legacy practice and you have FOMO?

Is it time for academia to abandon X? Given that universities and colleges fundamentally exist to discover and share factual information, the platform’s refusal to fight misinformation seems diametrically opposed to academia’s core mission and vision. In the UK and Europe, many universities have already pulled back, either deleting their accounts or going silent. And if you’re staying to connect with media, some are already leaving, including NPR, the Guardian, the European Federation of Journalists. Yet, it still seems like organizations are waiting for either a rapid acceleration in departures or a “tipping point” event to drive them off the platform.

For higher ed institutions, is where you live on social media a moral as well as a business choice? As communicators and leaders, do you feel comfortable with your brand/reputation being associated with X? Do you have a plan in place if that association pulls you into the bog? Otherwise, have you thought about how to extricate yourself from X? It’s not impossible, and it could allow you to focus your social media resources on other, more beneficial platforms–and in the end, it may also help you sleep a little sounder. Bye-bye, Birdie. 

Stormy Weather

April 2 in Ontario is living up to tradition…wind, snow, ice and rain is forecast across the province. It’s technically spring, but this is often the time of year when a final winter weather cataclysm howls across the province, forcing higher ed comms offices to pull out their emergency closure binders and send e-blasts to their community.

But this year, April 2 brings another storm. More colleges and universities are reporting revenue losses, with colleges like Centennial, Fleming, Fanshawe and Conestoga announcing intake or program suspensions or layoffs, and universities like York and Waterloo anticipating significant deficits or cuts. 

The fiscal crisis facing public higher education barely registered during the recent provincial election, and the current federal election appears to be following the same path. As Canada prepares to choose its next Prime Minister, there is no indication that educating the next generation of citizens is top-of-mind for any of the parties, suggesting that funding for this sector will continue to slide against our global competitors. 

And to top it off, April 2 is “Liberation Day”, according to American president Donald Trump–the day when his regime will announce a series of global tariffs. The chaotic impact of Trump’s financial flip-flops, along with his disturbing use of ICE to target, detain and deport international students and outright attacks on university funding and autonomy, is creating further mayhem in an industry still recovering from COVID. Some professors are looking north, and outgoing U of T President Meric Gertler told Times Higher Education that applications from American students are up 23 per cent at Canada’s largest teaching and research university. 

But Canada is not yet positioned to absorb those fleeing American higher ed, let alone provide sufficient space for domestic students in high-priority programs. With international enrolment (in particular from powerhouse India) drying up, domestic programs that have been subsidized by foreign students will also lose funding, leading to fewer opportunities for Canadian students.

Ontario–and Canada–must chart a sustainable course for universities and colleges, especially as other institutions worldwide focus on STEM and AI (sorry, humanities), while also dealing with cyber attacks and data security issues, a growing demand for mental health and wellness services, and oh yeah–CLIMATE CHANGE. 

Everyone needs to come to the table for this–governments with a meaningful funding model, industries with partnerships, businesses and alumni with fundraising. It’s complicated, but this is a unique opportunity for universities to do what they excel at: get curious and collaborate in interdisciplinary ways to solve problems. Only then can we dig out from this sector-wide storm and prepare for a Canadian higher ed garden in full bloom.

How can Canada benefit from Trump’s attacks on US higher ed?

While Canadian post-secondary institutions are weathering their own massive fiscal storms due to IRCC caps on international student enrolment, and long-time funding shortages and tuition freezes, spare a thought for our colleagues south of the border.

Several top U.S. universities, including Princeton and the University of California system, have announced hiring freezes in response to spending cuts from the Trump regime. Johns Hopkins University is laying off over 2,000 employees after losing significant funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. These drastic measures are occurring amidst federal investigations into universities for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students during pro-Palestinian protests last spring.

Now, in a major move against high-profile universities, the Trump regime has cancelled roughly US$400 million in federal grants to Columbia University, accusing the institution of antisemitism. Columbia has responded with policy changes, including restrictions on demonstrations and a review of its Middle East curriculum.

University leaders are expressing alarm over the regime’s aggressive actions, which they believe threaten academic freedom, democratic traditions, and the global research leadership of American academia. This broader crackdown is also raising anxiety for international students, as some have been detained or deported. The toxic environment is causing declining international applications to U.S. universities, and potential tax increases on university endowments are further exacerbating these institution’s financial worries.

For Canadian researchers and institutions, who have collaborated freely with their U.S. counterparts for decades, this academic chill is both unsettling and a threat to ongoing research partnerships and funding. For many American professors, it may be worrisome enough to trigger serious thoughts about abandoning the increasingly polarized, partisan and authoritarian nation. 

Yet while that might suggest a potential for Canadian “brain-gain” as a result of America’s democratic upheavals, there is little space or budget within current Canadian academia to absorb a large influx of professors (or engineers, etc.) fleeing the U.S. strife. Instead, we may see other nations, like France, offering “intellectual asylum” to researchers seeking safe harbour.

As Canada heads into a federal election that grapples with looming threats to our economic health and sovereignty, it’s worthwhile for party leaders to consider how they hope to position Canadian higher ed for the next generation. Do we want to be known for an underfunded system unable to absorb either bright profs or students, or as a Northern Light–a global beacon of innovative, equitable and sustainable learning? 

Elbows up, Canada.