President Trump’s administration has unleashed numerous demands on America’s leading-edge universities, meshing with other demands for societal change. The resistance has been widespread, spawning its own panoply of legal action and protests.
It seems impossible to find a coherent middle-road between the demands and the resistance.
Harvard, America’s oldest and arguably best university, has been on center stage in this political drama. The Trump administration demands Harvard remove DEI from school policies and practices, embrace merit in hiring and admissions, remove recognition from student groups that are antisemitic, reform programs with records of antisemitism, not admit international students who hold views antithetical to American values, and much more.
The wording in the demand letter is strong:
“Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity.“
The president of Harvard, Alan Garber, denounced most of the demands. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
Jeffrey Flier, former dean of the Harvard Medical School, observed that at a practical level, “You can’t suddenly turn a switch and things change overnight.”
More pointedly, Flier personally commented:
“Neither the woke left nor the Trumpist/Rufo right wants to carry out the necessary reform. They each want an academy linked to their ideas and unwelcome to others. To link one’s effort to either of these is heading down the wrong path. Sometimes you need to do the hard work to get reform and doing it in an often painfully slow way is better than a quick path to perdition.
“Anyone who believes that the Trump administration is carrying out its attacks on Harvard to combat antisemitism and to create a university culture with greater viewpoint diversity in a context of academic freedom is either willfully blind or part of the shameful campaign to put authoritarians in control of what used to be called higher education.“
Stepping back from both the demands and the resistance, the ordinary citizen is likely aware that Harvard University is private. That there are some justifiable concerns raised in the Trump letter. That the Harvard community may have sometimes bent its motto about what Truth means. And that the federal dollars Harvard receives are a privilege. Apart from these concerns, the question remains about how such changes can, or should be, facilitated.
The Trump administration is considering having Harvard’s tax-exempt status revoked. Rarely done, but a possibility.
A way forward
Social change often proceeds at a glacial place, but crises can speed up the pace of social change, making it seem imperative. If we are in such a moment, we might ask how much time is needed to get to make significant change.
In academia, that time is measured in decades. For students, the measure of time is closer to four years.
Maybe there is no satisfactory answer that Harvard administrators can provide. If not, there are alternatives. One path leads in the direction of taking the time needed but with the risk of losing federal funds and losing its tax-exempt status.
That is the path currently portrayed in the media and between the antagonists. Another path can avoid or minimize such extreme consequences. That path would exploit current technology to speed up the pace and extent of social change. This technology is not magic; it is AI.
AI as a neutral filter
While I can describe how artificial intelligence can play the role of a neutral arbiter in this situation, perhaps a chatbot can explain this role more effectively, especially with respect to teaching. Curricula and teaching appear to be among the more difficult challenges since they involve issues of academic free speech.
If reform is reasonably successful in teaching, reform would portend well for other concerns raised in the demand letter. The question is whether an AI filter could be an acceptable replacement for solutions that might include judicial oversight envisioned in a consent decree.
The chatbot explains the AI-filter solution:
“The strength of this approach lies in its neutrality. By focusing on the how of teaching rather than the what, it respects academic freedom while addressing legitimate concerns about the conditions that can lead to ideological capture. The AI acts as an early warning system, identifying patterns and trends that might escape traditional, slower mechanisms of institutional oversight. It can highlight departments or courses that consistently lack diverse perspectives or fail to encourage critical engagement, prompting faculty-led discussions and pedagogical adjustments.
“Furthermore, the AI filter can serve as a crucial bridge between the academy’s long-term rhythms and the immediate demands for change. By providing concrete data on the current pedagogical landscape and potential areas for improvement, it can inform more targeted and efficient interventions. Instead of broad, potentially disruptive mandates, the AI can pinpoint specific pedagogical shifts that can be implemented within a shorter timeframe, such as revising reading lists, incorporating diverse guest speakers, or redesigning assignments to foster critical analysis. This allows the university to demonstrate tangible progress to external stakeholders within the compressed timeframe imposed by governmental pressure, without compromising the fundamental principles of academic freedom or resorting to superficial changes.
“The AI filter, therefore, offers a path towards a more responsive and accountable academy. It acknowledges the value of academic tradition and the importance of faculty autonomy in shaping their curricula and pedagogy. However, it also recognizes the urgent need to address legitimate concerns about the student experience and the potential consequences of institutional inertia in the face of societal demands. By providing a neutral, data-driven lens on pedagogical practices, the AI can empower universities to enact meaningful change within a compressed timeframe, demonstrating a commitment to both their core values and their responsibility to create a truly inclusive and intellectually vibrant environment for all students, under the watchful eye of an increasingly impatient world. (Gemini)“
Too easy an answer? Maybe. The AI filter would need both parties to agree in order to operate successfully. They would need consensus on the algorithms to be used. That agreement would represent the human-in-the-loop.
Or is it a therapist taking over the role of a judge? Maybe. But recent research shows that AI therapists are effective, comparable to human therapists. Contentious situations would likely respond to efforts at social change when the neutral has no stake in the outcome and lacks the passion that motivates antagonistic stubborn behavior. Also, a human judge would not be available 24/7 as well as handicapped by emotion and bias.
While generative AI technology and AI agents still need tweaking, they may soon prove the key to fractious human partisanship. The news won’t be as interesting, but we might just get along in unanticipated ways.
Joe Nalven is an adviser to the Californians for Equal Rights Foundation and a former associate director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University.
