Why Trump Going After Harvard Is A Boon

News18

3 days ago

Last Updated:
There is no reason for the US to continue reaping the maximum profit from the world's intellectual capital; every nation must set up its own Harvard equivalents
With US President Donald Trump hellbent on bringing Harvard University to heel—as well as several other Ivy League and top schools—successive salvos continue to reveal interesting facts. On Monday, he ranted about 30 per cent of Harvard's student body being foreigners. Subsequent 'fact-checking" showed that the actual figure was closer to 27 per cent—from 145 nations. Even so, it means well over a quarter of the student body of the best American university is not American.
Imagine if Indians woke up one day to find that one-fourth of those studying at IITs, IIMs, IISc, AIIMS, or any of the premier colleges are foreigners. What would be the consensus? Would there be pride in the fact that Indian universities are attracting the best brains from abroad, never mind if some Indians do not get a chance to benefit from the same facilities? Would Indians be overjoyed that those foreigners go on to bag the best jobs in the country too?
What would be the reaction of Indians if some very vocal foreign students also drove the agenda of the Indian universities, became the leaders of protests that stalled classes, and also openly indulged in politics, rather than stick to their academic goals? Would Indians be proud of the fact that foreign students were so involved in activities beyond what their visas envisaged? Would Indians be happy that the Indian education process was being regularly disrupted?
It is easy to be appalled at Trump's supposed xenophobic moves to 'isolate" the US education system from the midstream of international talent. After all, those universities have benefited not only from the intellectual capital of the world but also from their financial largesse. It seems suicidal to make the US jump off that gravy train. But there must be a significant latent groundswell of local resentment that Trump has sussed but opinion makers refuse to acknowledge.
Much like they refused to countenance that Trump could make a comeback after the defeat of 2020, the avalanche of court cases, and 'shocking" revelations by former friends and disgruntled relatives. Whatever Trump does, as mad as most of his moves seem to the world outside, there is a common thread: America First. If that means annoying friends—like India and Indians—so be it. And his campaign against Harvard and others is in that very same vein.
His dumping the DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) mantra was the definitive indication, though, that Indians there (or here) were not sad about Trump scrapping it. Indians did not qualify for it most of the time anyway because American-born desis are not seen as being disadvantaged, though they are in a minority, racially and numerically. But remember, India has quotas too. Imagine if foreigners were also deemed eligible for them under similar DEI-type principles!
Which Indian politician would not have done exactly what Trump is doing now had he or she seen seats at the best universities and coveted jobs going to immigrants? It would be interesting to find out how many Americans who are not eligible for DEI or affirmative action have been unable to get into top universities in the past 50 years. Surely it cannot be that most Americans who do not fall under any minority or special category have no scholastic talent?
Some 71 per cent of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded to Americans—423 of them so far since 1901. An average of 35 per cent of American Nobel laureates in the sciences and economics are foreign-born, but that percentage is far higher if only the last two decades are considered. For instance, 4 out of 6 American Nobel laureates in medicine, chemistry, and physics in 2023 were immigrants. Surely it cannot be that US-born people have suddenly become less bright?
The inescapable conclusion is that the formidable resources of top US research institutions are being used to great effect by talented immigrants who arrived there via generous scholarships. But what happened to the American-born gene pool that had fuelled earlier scientific advances? Is this Nobel Prize skew a result of natural selection or affirmative action ensuring only a certain kind of talent makes it to the institutions that have the best resources?
These are uncomfortable questions, but valid all the same. How much of a nation's resources can be shared with newcomers without irking the 'natives"? Trump's reaction to this skew, taking a cue from popular sentiment, was inevitable. While Trump is predictably not handling the optics very well, especially with much of the US mainstream media implacably ranged against him, his motivations should be apparent to anyone familiar with his core constituency.
Without an equitable resolution to the issue, even a change of party (and therefore policy too) after him will only kick the can further down the road. It will have to be addressed eventually. Western universities have had the advantage of centuries of wealth flowing in, which many nations elsewhere—in Asia, Africa, and South America—have not. These areas definitely do have intellectual capital, but only Western universities have the facilities to utilise it properly.
What Asian, African, and South American countries lacked for a long time was commensurate financial capital to back the endeavours and aspirations of their best and brightest brains. That is no longer the case. Many nations now have the money to set up world-class universities and fund cutting-edge research; centuries-old legacies and endowments are not a prerequisite for that. They just need to attract the best teachers and set strict performance standards.
The Arab nations are already snatching the initiative from the West in many spheres. They will surely venture into the education and research sectors too. It will not be long, perhaps, before the same bright foreigners who now seek entry into America's top universities—as well as faculty members—will flock to new, well-funded institutions in West Asia. That will not only take the pressure off US universities but also give them a run for their money.
Rich Indians, both resident and non-resident, have donated plenty to existing educational institutions in India, but they have been even more generous to American universities of all kinds, from Ivy League to relatively obscure. That sends a mixed message. What do Western universities have that Indian ones lack? Better systems and processes, more rigorous academic practices, opportunities for creative thinking, and a culture of funding research. So?
Can that not be replicated in India by enlightened investors? Surely the same Indians who reach great heights in US universities and push the boundaries of knowledge can achieve the same right here if provided the right facilities and opportunities? It will take time to gather the best teachers from around the world and persuade the brightest young minds to stay in India. There are Indians with the money to pull it off, but will they play the long game?
It is naïve to expect that after Trump, the US will go back to being a country that puts foreigners/immigrants/"aliens" on the same level as its own citizens when it comes to facilities and opportunities and privileges certain minorities for its best institutions. That genie is out of the bottle. And why should America continue to reap the maximum profit from the world's intellectual capital anyway?
The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views.
tags :
donald trump education Harvard United states
Location :
New Delhi, India, India
First Published:
May 28, 2025, 17:16 IST
News opinion Opinion | Why Trump Going After Harvard Is A Boon