BY KATHY ROBERTS FORDE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE STAND TOGETHER FOR HIGHER ED LEADERSHIP TEAM*

In a rare act of institutional solidarity, twenty-four universities have filed a joint amicus brief supporting Harvard in its lawsuit against the federal government’s attempt to cut research funding. The lawsuit challenges the federal government’s politically motivated suspension of billions of dollars in research funding, a move that threatens not only Harvard but also the autonomy, research mission, and public value of every American college and university.

As the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education have escalated, this brief stands as a clear signal: University leaders understand that an attack on one university’s autonomy and existence is a threat to all. It is the kind of mutual academic defense that faculty and academic staff defenders of higher education have been advocating since the administration brought Columbia to its knees back in March and made it known that sixty other universities were also in the crosshairs. At that time, a group of faculty at UMass Amherst launched a letter urging all sixty targeted institutions to stand together. The letter drew about 5,000 faculty signatures and was among a groundswell of many other petitions and resolutions—including one from the Rutgers University Senate calling for a mutual academic defense compact (MADC) among Big Ten schools. Since the Rutgers statement went public, the AAUP held a MADC webinar and dozens of other faculty and university senates around the country have passed resolutions calling for compacts both regional and national. And hundreds of higher education leaders have come together in that spirit to advocate for constructive engagement.

The new amicus brief—joined by private and public research universities—is a watershed moment in this expanding grassroots movement. Its key points highlight how the fates of all research universities are at stake in Harvard’s case: The US has partnered with universities to advance science for more than eighty years; this partnership has made the US a global leader, and funding cuts threaten US standing in the world and scientific discovery that improves life both here and abroad. While there may be legal constraints for MADCs to share general counsel across institutions, amicus briefs are an important way that institutions can work together outside the risk of litigation as friends of the courts. In addition to presenting broader implications that might influence the judge, the symbolic act of so many institutions collaborating together—regardless of endowment size, state, or region of the country—sends a very clear message to the federal government that higher education will not be bullied.

Successful movements need legal strategies to achieve their goals. We need the kind of coalitional legal action exemplified in the twenty-four-university amicus brief—but higher ed will not win in the courts alone. No movement ever has.

We must win in the court of public opinion and emphasize that working together can transcend partisanship. We can and must build the local and national infrastructure that allows us to act together in the common defense of academic freedom and the public mission of US higher education. Colleges and universities produce science, art, literature, competitive sports, and scholarship of all kinds and provide education—and, in public universities in particular, social mobility—for millions of students nationwide. Future students will surely miss a chance at a better future when their college or university no longer exists. That’s why we need MADCs. While the amicus brief is a powerful legal tool of institutional solidarity, MADCs are agile, campus-rooted commitments that empower faculty, staff, and administrators to act swiftly when any institution is attacked—legally, politically, or reputationally. MADCs embody the spirit of this amicus brief, but they are faster-moving, broader-based, and more durable.

We must build the capacity for faculty and staff across the nation to mobilize quickly in collective action to protect our shared mission. We must reclaim the public narrative about higher education’s essential, life-affirming role in a democratic society—and it is essential, just as the trades, the military, and nonpartisan civil servants equally contribute to a thriving democracy. If higher education is going to survive this political maelstrom, it’s up to us—faculty, staff, students, parents, and alumni—to defend it together. Now that some campus leaders have made such a public stance together, we hope they and others will join us.

That’s why, in collaboration with the AAUP, we have launched Stand Together for Higher Ed to build compacts and faculty power on campuses across the country and reclaim the narrative about higher ed as a public good. Stand Together for Higher Ed is a faculty-led movement forming campus teams nationwide to coordinate defense, strategy, and mutual aid. These teams are already working to prepare campuses of all kinds to respond collectively when one of us is targeted. We invite faculty and staff everywhere to start or join a Stand Together team on their campus (learn how here—we have a great toolkit) and to advocate for mutual academic defense compacts in faculty senates, AAUP chapters, or other representative bodies.

The campus leaders who joined the Harvard amicus brief have taken a brave and necessary stand. They all understand the power of collective action at this crucial moment for higher education. They’ve shown what institutional solidarity can look like in a time of political attack. We celebrate their courage and invite them and others to join us in defending higher education—the health of our democracy is at stake.

*The full list of contributors to this post is as follows: Kathy Roberts Forde, Jennifer Lundquist, Paul Boxer, Mark Pachucki, Morgan Woroner, David Salas-De La Cruz, and Sarah E. Chinn.