Harvard’s Biggest Liability Is Its Prestige | Opinion

In today’s climate, prestige doesn’t always pay.

Harvard took a hit to its PR after the Department of Justice’s recent release of documents concerning convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein. The files revealed the extent of Epstein’s interconnectness with large swaths of the Harvard ecosystem. Epstein forged friendships with professors, donated to student-facing organizations like the Hasty Pudding Institute of 1770, and even rented a house in Cambridge.

Epstein’s impressive presence included powerful associates such as prominent donor Leslie H. Wexner and former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers. Despite not being an alumnus, Epstein was almost certainly drawn to Harvard circles due to the tremendous social capital the University had. And, in turn, it seems that Harvard was drawn to Epstein, not because he was necessarily anybody of particular achievement, but because of his social prowess.

The attraction between Epstein and Harvard, aside from being morally reprehensible, has placed yet another scandal at the University’s feet. But the public’s growing disdain isn’t limited to Epstein; it is instead part of a larger trend as influence over American society has democratized beyond a closed group of elites and the powerful institutions associated with them.

The power and prestige that used to be Harvard’s marquee strength have increasingly become a liability.

A widespread realignment against elite-associated institutions has caused problems for Harvard. The University’s high-profile legal fight with the Trump administration is a clear manifestation of this trend, but populist threats transcend the MAGA movement. Policies aimed at curbing the influence of elite education, such as an endowment tax, have found bipartisan support at various levels of government.

The phenomenon of populism is not new to America — its history goes back 200 years to Andrew Jackson. However, populist rhetoric, usually framing politics as a battle between undeserving elites and the people, has come to define political attitudes since the 2008 financial crisis, through the popularity of politicians like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

The risk this poses to Harvard isn’t going away anytime soon. The populist impulse that has driven attacks against institutions is here to stay and necessarily stands in opposition to deeply embedded power.

The reasons for this shift to populism have been much debated, but I hypothesize that, like much of American society, the political system has become much more democratized. Party elites now possess much less sway over the Presidential nominating process, for instance, with the adoption of primary elections and reforms to the superdelegate system.

Similarly, our economic system has also become more meritocratic. Since the 1970s, due in no small part to computerization, the American economy has placed greater emphasis on technical skills and worker productivity in determining wages. Social position has, thus, become less reliant on the patronage networks that had maintained an older hermetic elite’s dominance over the economic system, regardless of their actual ability.

Now, because of the greater impact of skills and education on economic mobility and individual productivity, people at different levels of the income ladder have been able to reach the highest levels of the income distribution, diluting the stale economic power and influence of these unproductive hereditary elites. In other words, the rewards for productivity and ability have grown, while those for social connections have rightfully fallen.

Harvard, to its credit, has kept up with the country’s democratization in many ways. In recent decades, it has tried to achieve some socioeconomic diversity by opening up its admissions process and making the University more accessible through outreach programs and financial aid.

However, Harvard still possesses the stubborn label of an old elite institution, partly because some pockets of the University still seem to embrace it. The Epstein saga seems to have exemplified it; his association was one of those connections typical of the old elite who gained access despite their lack of ability.

While many academics study for years to become experts in their field, Epstein schmoozed his way into becoming a visiting fellow at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, earning a recommendation by then-Psychology Department Chair Stephen M. Kosslyn, with whom he cultivated a lasting relationship.

The problem is that in a more democratic nation, Harvard’s blue-blooded reputation now hurts its ability to obtain funding and execute one of its core missions: being a research institution.

A defeat would not be borne by Harvard alone. Continuing to lose funding could prove dire for the people relying on Harvard’s drug development efforts to treat and cure deadly diseases. It could spell major setbacks to innovation in cutting-edge technologies like quantum computing and generative AI.

Even with stakes this high, it’s not clear if or how Harvard can shake off its elite reputation entirely. Solutions like ending legacy admissions and increasing access to admissions may help by continuing to make Harvard more open and meritocratic, but the elite reputation of Harvard is unlikely to wane anytime soon.

America has changed — the question is whether Harvard will change with it.

Henry F. Haidar ’28, an Associate Editorial Editor, is an Applied Math Concentrator in Lowell House.

DOCUMENTED REFERENCES

Browse the structured archive of documented order records