Elite Universities at a Crossroads: Reflections on Steven Pinker’s Defense of Harvard

What Cornell and its peers must learn from past failures and the realities beyond the campus gates.

In his recent article for The New York Times, Harvard professor Steven Pinker offers a robust defense of America’s elite universities, particularly his own. Pinker’s argument—that these institutions, despite their flaws, deserve protection and continued support—has triggered a wave of reflection among those of us deeply concerned with the future of higher education. At the Cornell Free Speech Alliance (CFSA), we believe this moment requires not only reflection but real, corrective action.

Harvard University

We suspect that many faculty, administrators, and staff at institutions like Harvard, Cornell, and their peers will resonate with Pinker’s perspective. They may be inclined to shift from critique to defense, driven by two factors: first, universities are their professional and economic lifeblood; and second, their identities are often intertwined with the reputations and continuity of their institutions. When the legitimacy of the university is challenged, so too is their personal sense of purpose and belonging.

Yet there is a growing recognition—both within and beyond the academy—that something has gone deeply awry in higher education. Conversations among Cornell faculty and senior administrators suggest an emerging consensus: that the strategic and cultural directions taken by many elite universities over the past two decades have not served their core missions well.

Three patterns stand out:

1. Mission Drift and Peer Conformity: Institutional leaders and faculty have too often succumbed to ideological conformity and external pressures, straying from the university’s foundational commitments to truth-seeking, intellectual pluralism, and academic rigor.
   

2. Loss of Public Trust: Millions of Americans—those outside the elite university ecosystem—have noticed this drift. Many see our once-great institutions as insular, dismissive, or even hostile to the values and perspectives of the broader society.
   

3. Dependence on the Public: Universities are beginning to confront a hard truth: their survival depends on the trust, goodwill, and financial support of the same public they have long alienated. This dependence is being made clearer by the shifting political landscape and policy decisions of the current U.S. administration.

   
   

This confluence of factors—internal mismanagement, cultural insularity, and external accountability—has created a legitimacy crisis. And it is forcing a reckoning among those who have long been shielded from criticism by the prestige of the institutions they inhabit.

Pinker’s conflicted defense reflects this moment. He, like many academics, recognizes that the institutions he once championed are now vulnerable—because of leadership failures, not external persecution. The danger, in our view, lies not in criticism of these universities, but in their persistent refusal to acknowledge or address the causes of their decline.

The lesson is not without historical precedent. Germany, a nation that gave the world some of its most profound cultural and scientific achievements—Beethoven, Einstein, Gutenberg, the research university model itself—became, in the early 20th century, a threat to the very civilization it had once enriched. German universities, rather than resisting the tide, became complicit in the country’s descent. While today’s American universities are not analogous in ideology or intent, the structural parallels are worth noting: institutions of great prestige and achievement are not immune to becoming dangerous when they abandon their core purposes.

We also reject the comforting notion that elite universities are “too important to fail.” History suggests otherwise. Just as venerable institutions like Lehman Brothers and Arthur Andersen were allowed to collapse—despite past contributions—so too can universities face serious consequences when they act irresponsibly. Institutional greatness is not a shield against accountability.

At Cornell, this moment demands a different path than that currently modeled by Harvard. Instead of doubling down on defensiveness or hubris, university leadership should approach this crossroads with humility, openness, and a willingness to re-engage with the broader public it serves.

Organizations like Heterodox Academy offer resources and frameworks that could help Cornell and other institutions reflect on where they’ve gone wrong—and how to realign with their foundational missions. Such recalibration will not be easy. But the alternative is worse: further erosion of public trust, reduced institutional relevance, and, ultimately, existential risk.

As Pinker wisely observed, “If you’re standing in a downpour and Mr. Trump tells you to put up an umbrella, you shouldn’t refuse just to spite him.” Universities must learn to accept valid critique, even when it comes from unlikely sources. Doing so is not a sign of weakness—it is a precondition for renewal.

Elite universities helped build the modern world. Whether they continue to contribute to its flourishing—or retreat further into irrelevance—is now in their hands.