Ample sighs of unrestrained relief frantically cascaded throughout multiple segments of the higher education community upon Harvard University’s refusal to capitulate to the Trump administration’s demands that essentially would have amounted to an autocratic takeover of America’s oldest higher education institution. Indeed, on April 14, Harvard defied Trump’s threat to cut federal funding aid and announced on Monday that the university would not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Harvard President Alan M. Garber wrote, “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. The University will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.” Hallelujah was the word of choice among more than a few people across many professions.

Notably, Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber stated that he would refuse to surrender to the administration. Michael Roth, president of Wesleyan University and a perennial outspoken critic of the Trump administration’s directives to colleges, applauded Harvard’s position. “Federal funding for universities must not depend on a loyalty oath,” Roth said in a statement. Stanford is also prepared not to comply. The faculty council at Indiana University has organized other Midwestern universities to refuse as has the University of Massachusetts with land-grant universities. Harvard sounded the alarm and the results have become a growing chorus of opposition that is picking up considerable amounts of steam.

Claire Shipman, Columbia University’s interim president, has signaled that the institution may refuse to accede to any demands it believes compromises its integrity and autonomy. Interestingly, as of this column, Columbia has yet to see any of its funds returned. Now Trump is considering whether to seek a federal consent decree to ratify any negotiated agreement with the school.

Perhaps, in a sad, pathetic effort to save face, on April 18, the New York Times reported that two Trump administration sources said an April 11 letter to Harvard President Alan Garber and signed by three federal officials was “unauthorized” and should not have been sent. Needless to say, the university balked at such assertions. Harvard refused to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, ban masks at campus protests, enact merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, and reduce the power of faculty and administrators that the Republican administration has called “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

Apparently, the university’s ultimate decision to resist wasn’t the initial one but , rather, became the end result given the fact that the White House sent a list of demands so detailed, draconian, humiliating, and blatantly anti-intellectual that Harvard was left with no option but to reject it.

Hundreds of Harvard students and faculty and staff members protested earlier this month, demanding that the university administration not give in, adding to a previous public letter with a similar sentiment signed by 600 university educators, who expressed fear that the school would follow Columbia University’s actions. Spitefully, the Trump administration responded by revoking $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts. President Trump has also suggested that the institution should forfeit its tax-exempt status. In response, the university filed a lawsuit against the administration on April 21st.

Again, many if not most universities are relieved by Harvard’s actions. Nonetheless, the truth is that the University has a $50 billion endowment, numerous wealthy alumni, and multiple other resources at its disposal. Institutions with a fraction of such an endowment may feel much more pressure to adhere to administration demands and redefine their policies.

Such a reality could certainly pertain to smaller, regional state institutions and lesser-known small colleges. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) would be specifically vulnerable to such callous bullying. Some have millions of dollars in federal contracts. A number of HBCUs barely treading water are particularly in danger of being subjected to the intense pressure this administration could or would apply.

Conservatives’ war on academia has been decades in the making, and Trump is eagerly amplifying the battle. However, regardless of their reputation, financial situation, or stature, universities shouldn’t allow themselves to become educational doormats. This current political climate provides higher education with the ability to demonstrate the diversity of resources they offer to the public and broaden their appeal. Such efforts would likely go a long way in rehabilitating and reaffirming higher education’s value to more than just an increasingly narrow elite segment of society. Words for thought.