I hate waking up to a headline that really pisses me off. I hate it even more when reading the actual article just makes me angrier.
This morning, at the top of The New York Times website, was an article entitled: “Harvard’s President Is Fighting Trump. He Also Agrees With Him.”
Both of the headline’s sentences are problematic—borderline abominations. I’ll get to the first one in a moment. But let’s start with the second. Whoa boy.
I jumped into the article with a sickening hunch about what might back up the assertion of “agreement” between Harvard’s president, Dr. Alan Garber, and the autocrat in the White House. The reporters didn’t waste time. There it was in the second graph:
Dr. Garber agrees with Mr. Trump on one point. In one of the rare interviews he has given since Harvard began its battle with the federal government, Dr. Garber said this week that Harvard has a campus culture problem that needs urgent fixing.
What follows is a long article detailing Dr. Garber’s background, the political protests—particularly those over the war in Gaza—that have roiled college campuses, DEI initiatives, criticism of groupthink in academia, and a host of other issues that I think most of us (including Dr. Garber) would agree are nuanced and complex.
One person who does not believe in complexity or nuance—the very foundation of academic inquiry—is Donald Trump.
Let’s be clear: Trump attacking Harvard and illegally withholding billions in grant funding for things like biomedical research isn’t about antisemitism. It’s about power. It’s about dismantling universities as bastions of independent thought—the same foundational reason he’s going after the legal system, the press, science, and the civil service.
Are we really supposed to believe this is about Jewish students? From a man who said there were “very fine people on both sides” after white supremacists marched in Charlottesville? Who hosted Kanye West and white nationalist Nick Fuentes for dinner after both publicly praised Hitler? Who has trafficked in antisemitic tropes, calling Jews “good with money” and suggesting they control politicians?
This isn’t about protecting people. It’s a pretense for attacking institutions. And it’s a dangerous farce—one that echoes antisemitic rhetoric itself. Academia has long been a place where Jewish Americans have found community and flourished. When Trump and his regime rail against “elites” or claim that universities wield too much power, many Jews recognize exactly where that tragic playbook leads.
Jews voted overwhelmingly for Kamala Harris—by nearly four to one. Within the American Jewish community, there’s fierce debate over Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Just as there’s fierce debate within the Democratic Party about bias, equity, and how to best address systemic racial injustice. But to pretend that Trump’s regime is participating in good-faith dialogue on these issues is absurd, and gaslighting.
Trump has no guiding principles—only the drive to feed his own base instincts: ego gratification, greed, lust, and the hunger for power. Everything else, including a supposed fight against antisemitism, is expendable.
Now, back to the first sentence of that headline: “Harvard’s President Is Fighting Trump.” Again, the framing is on Trump’s terms. He thrives in one-on-one brawls where he can assert dominance. But Dr. Garber isn’t fighting Trump. He’s fighting for academic freedom. For democracy. Heck, for cancer research.
Eventually, the article touches on some of those stakes. But the damage is done by the premise. By personalizing this as a clash of presidents, The Times once again indulges the whims of a would-be king.
“Harvard’s President Is Fighting Trump. He Also Agrees With Him.” is a catchy headline. It uses juxtaposition, antithetical verbs, and parallel structure to great effect. We all know who the “he” and “him” are.
But with democracy and academic independence on the line, maybe it’s time to skip the clever wordplay—and get to the truth. We can't cede the narrative to the regime.
Note: If you are on Bluesky and wish to follow me, you can find me at: @elliotkirschner.bsky.social
Finally somebody says it out loud. His vice president went to Germany and demanded that they let the party that is associated with Nazis speak he said it was restricting free ideas. His little buddy appeared via satellite in Germany until Germans that they are weaker for continuing to apologize for their past what past is that? The Holocaust so on the one hand they're going to Germany saying allow Nazism to flourish but they're supposedly against anti-semitism? Make it make sense
I saw that headline this morning with a similar revulsion, but just refused to even open it. So thank you for tackling it, confirming my expectation, and writing this fabulous piece about how the mainstream press is failing, even as they act as if they’re nailing it. It’s so disappointing…