The Trump administration sent Harvard a letter full of illegal demands in April. We all know Harvard for moving slow. But the big H responded fast to this b.s.:
“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach,” Harvard’s president Alan Garber said in a letter posted on the university’s website.
Boom. It was a statement reported around the world. It was decisive, swift, and came with all the blessing of the organization’s board. From a strategic communications perspective it was a line in the sand. I read it and said, “hallelujah.” Particularly as it followed a rival university’s capitulation days earlier.
But here’s a question. How would your organization respond to a letter like that? Who do you want to be in this moment? Have you had a conversation about it? Would you capitulate? Would you resist? Would you low-key resist while pretending to capitulate? What’s the damage done to your reputation there? If you’re a grantmaking organization, what would be the impact on your grantees? Or do you think you’re immune from such threats because you’re not a Harvard or, say, a Kennedy Center?
News flash: A letter is on its way. None of us is immune and I can’t say for sure what form that letter will take. But if you work on a good cause with a tax deductible status? Prepare now. The complacency among small and midsize foundations is breathtaking. It maddens me almost as much as all the fascism they’re facing down.
What does preparation look like? It’s a good question.
Grantmakers in the Arts is hosting my colleagues and I for a webinar next week on this theme. This is a project we are doing a lot of good trouble with. It builds a sense of meaning and value in fighting back against Trump. We founded the Department of Nonprofit Efficiency to help grantmakers and nonprofits. Many are stuck, right now, because they’re waiting to take a cue from their peers. Others are hoping that paralysis looks strategic, which it does, from the outside. That is, until you fumble your big moment when that letter comes.
Many students and alumni lauded Harvard’s decision to stand its ground. Former President Barack Obama, an alumnus himself, called Trump’s move “ham-handed.” He praised Harvard as “an example for other higher-ed institutions.” My friend David finally gave Harvard $5, breaking a 40-year pledge to never give his alma mater a dime. I’ve been outspoken about disliking the exclusivity of New York’s Harvard Club. I’ve campaigned against the Harvard endowment and its efforts to amass groundwater. But even I’m about to go and buy myself a Harvard t-shirt. Who would have thought we’d be extolling the virtues of Harvard over anyone? This is a unifying moment. It’s time to pick a side. Pick Harvard’s.
Harvard has faced backlash, too. Investor Bill Ackman has continued a campaign of hostile social posts. Harvard has endured onerous investigations and extensive funding cuts. Its legal bills are, I’m sure, enormous. Can you afford to fight? If you think you can’t, can you afford not to? Which of these ducks do you have in a row?
- Legal.
- Public relations and strategic communications.
- Narrative strategy.
- Organizational culture.
Registration has closed for next week’s webinar but if you’re interested to explore the issues raised, feel free to book time with my colleagues and I, separately. Thanks for reading, as always. Please share this email with anybody you feel might appreciate it.
