Is Harvard worth saving—and how?

For generations, Harvard stood as the gold standard of American academia. Its name conjured images of intellectual authority, elite access, and unrivaled prestige. Few institutions have shaped the upper echelons of politics, business, and science with the same consistency—or confidence.

And yet, in the volatile stretch of 2024–2025, that sheen has dulled. The resignation of President Claudine Gay under allegations of plagiarism, combined with mounting criticism over the university’s handling of speech and conflict on campus, has exposed fault lines that can no longer be ignored. Once revered, Harvard has become a case study in institutional fragility.

What began as headline fodder has escalated into something deeper: a crisis not of performance, but of legitimacy. The question now reverberating from Capitol Hill to campus lawns is unambiguous—is Harvard still a force for public good, or merely an engine for elite perpetuation?

In an age of fractured politics and fading deference to legacy institutions, technical excellence no longer guarantees public trust. Harvard’s defenders point to its academic output and intellectual capital. But that record, however storied, is increasingly overshadowed by concerns about bias, secrecy, and ideological narrowness.

The backlash is no longer confined to op-eds and online chatter. Congressional probes have scrutinized the school’s approach to antisemitism and political speech. Major donors have walked away. And critics—both progressive and conservative—have raised uncomfortable questions about the fairness of its admissions and the public utility of its research.

Zoom out, and the trend becomes clear. Harvard isn’t just in the crosshairs because of isolated controversies. It’s become symbolic of a broader disillusionment with elite institutions. While some Americans still view Ivy League schools as ladders to success, others see them as gatekeepers of privilege, disconnected from everyday realities. In this climate, even a $50 billion endowment can feel like a liability, not an asset. How does an institution regain credibility when its prestige is no longer taken at face value?

Harvard has weathered storms before. But what it faces now is not reputational turbulence—it’s a reckoning. The rules have changed. Today’s public doesn’t just want excellence; it wants transparency, fairness, and proof of relevance.

The 2023 Supreme Court ruling that struck down race-conscious admissions put pressure on elite colleges to reassess how they define merit. But the problem runs deeper than race. Legacy preferences, donor-driven admits, and vague evaluation criteria all erode the claim of meritocracy. For Harvard, the path forward involves difficult but necessary choices: eliminate legacy advantages, publish more detailed admissions data, and aggressively recruit nontraditional students—from low-income districts to rural schools long overlooked.

A financial war chest of over $50 billion gives Harvard unmatched flexibility. Yet much of that wealth remains locked in investment vehicles or earmarked by restrictive covenants. What if Harvard reimagined the endowment as a public tool, not just a private cushion? Freeing up even a fraction for initiatives like nationwide scholarships, public-interest research, or global open-access education would send a clear message: this institution exists to serve, not hoard.

Decision-making at Harvard is often shrouded in tradition-bound procedures and insider influence. While faculty play a central role, critics argue the governance model reinforces intellectual conformity and resists outside scrutiny. Broadening representation on key boards—inviting alumni, students, and even community stakeholders—could rewire Harvard’s internal logic toward greater responsiveness.

It’s not a question of whether Harvard can afford to change. It’s whether it has the will to do so.

The stakes go far beyond Cambridge. Harvard, by design or inertia, sets the tone for elite education in the U.S. and abroad. How it responds could either model a new institutional ethos—or entrench the status quo under fresh PR.

A message to universities

No elite school can count on reputation alone. Today’s legitimacy is earned not by rankings, but by relevance. Universities that invest in climate solutions, public health, misinformation research, and economic mobility aren’t just fulfilling their mission—they’re safeguarding their future. If Harvard embraces transparency and redistributes influence, it might compel peer institutions to follow—or risk being seen as out of step with a generation that values equity over exclusivity.

Other universities, particularly those in the Ivy League and top-tier global schools, often shadow Harvard’s signals. Whether it's admissions criteria, free speech guidelines, or donor governance, what Harvard does—or refuses to do—quietly sets benchmarks. That’s why complacency here carries collective consequences.

A challenge for policymakers

The controversy also presents a window for legislative and regulatory reform. If private universities benefit from tax breaks, grants, and indirect subsidies, they should meet clearer expectations for public contribution. That could include endowment payout requirements, transparency mandates, or metrics tied to socioeconomic impact. Some lawmakers are already proposing oversight mechanisms not only for elite universities, but also for the broader nonprofit education sector. These ideas—once niche—are gaining traction fast.

A cultural recalibration

Public attitudes are shifting. Credentials no longer impress the way they used to. For many Americans, a Harvard degree signals advantage more than achievement. In that context, we may see more employers and institutions lean into alternative credentials, community college pipelines, and non-degree skills training. The prestige hierarchy is not static.

As younger generations push back against the notion that value must be conferred from the top down, institutions that fail to democratize access to opportunity risk losing their moral claim to leadership altogether.

Harvard is not beyond redemption—but it is at an inflection point. Its influence, wealth, and brand give it unparalleled capacity to lead. What it lacks right now is direction. The institution must do more than protect its legacy—it must reimagine it. That means cutting through the inertia of tradition, showing moral courage, and recommitting to a version of excellence that includes public accountability and civic purpose.

But reinvention is not risk-free. Harvard will face internal resistance—from tenured faculty who see change as dilution, from donors wary of politicization, and from alumni who equate reform with betrayal. These tensions are real. Still, leadership is not measured by comfort. It's measured by what an institution chooses to prioritize when its status no longer guarantees deference.

If Harvard simply weathers this moment through strategic silence and selective appeasement, it will survive—but it won’t matter in the way it used to. Prestige without purpose is increasingly hollow. The next generation isn’t looking for perfect institutions; they’re looking for ones that are honest, porous, and adaptive. Should Harvard seize this moment to become an engine of structural equity—not just symbolic diversity—it may not only restore its standing but redefine what elite education should be. That would be legacy worth protecting.