By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A letter containing extreme demands regarding Harvard’s policies on hiring, admissions, and curriculum, was mistakenly sent by a senior Trump administration official. The letter, though authentic in content, was reportedly sent prematurely or intended for internal use. Despite the administration now claiming the letter was an error, the demands remain, and Harvard’s federal funding has been frozen, prompting the university to publicly reject the terms. The administration has not rescinded its demands or reversed the funding freeze.
Read the original article here
The White House ignited a conflict with Harvard University, claiming it was a mistake. However, the administration’s refusal to retract its demands or apologize highlights a pattern of behavior. This isn’t the first time the administration has attributed its actions to errors, deflecting responsibility and failing to acknowledge accountability.
The incident with Harvard isn’t an isolated occurrence. A string of previous events showcase a similar pattern: personnel responsible for nuclear weapons were fired, later labeled a “mistake,” FDA reviewers were also dismissed, similarly excused as a “mistake,” and Ebola funding was cut, again attributed to a “mistake.” Even the firing of scientists studying bird flu was explained away as an oversight. These recurring instances paint a picture of an administration prone to errors, but unwilling to own them.
The accidental invitation of a journalist to a discussion about military attack plans, followed by the disclosure that this occurred on an unsecured app, further exemplifies the administration’s carelessness. The deportation of Abrego Garcia, also labeled a “mistake,” underscores the administration’s seeming inability to avoid missteps with significant consequences. This pattern, including the Harvard incident, leaves a troubling impression of incompetence.
The administration’s response to the Harvard controversy reveals a deeper issue. Even after admitting the letter containing demands was sent in error – whether due to the demands themselves or simply premature sending – the administration doubled down on its demands. The refusal to withdraw the demands, or reverse the decision to freeze $2.2 billion in grants, is a telling sign. The persistence of threats to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status demonstrates a lack of willingness to rectify the situation and accept responsibility for the blunder.
The administration’s actions portray an inability to acknowledge its own missteps. This unwillingness to admit fault, combined with the escalating conflict with Harvard, paints a picture of an administration resistant to accountability. The incident could be viewed as a clumsy attempt to exert power or, perhaps worse, evidence of a lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions.
Some suggest the administration’s reaction to Harvard’s challenge reveals a deeper issue within the administration itself. The strong reaction suggests a fear of losing face, a vulnerability exacerbated by the fact that many wealthy donors are Harvard alumni. This possibility, compounded by the perceived threat of legal action, may have contributed to the decision to stand firm, regardless of the initial “mistake.”
Many observers interpret the administration’s actions as an aggressive tactic. The decision to maintain the demands, even after admitting error, suggests the entire incident may have been a miscalculation. This strategy backfired dramatically and highlighted the administration’s lack of self-awareness and capacity for corrective action. Such behavior erodes public trust and raises concerns about the competence and integrity of the administration.
The administration’s persistent use of phrases like “it was a mistake” to excuse their actions further fuels public discontent. This repetitive pattern, combined with the administration’s refusal to take responsibility, has led to widespread skepticism and accusations of deflecting blame. The ongoing controversies surrounding the administration’s actions have led to concerns about the effectiveness and credibility of the government.
The Harvard situation mirrors past instances where the administration has employed “mistake” as a blanket excuse for problematic actions. The incident serves as a case study of how the administration consistently avoids accountability for its failures. The lack of a sincere apology coupled with the persistent pursuit of initial demands demonstrates that little has changed regarding the administration’s approach to error and responsibility.
The “mistake” narrative serves as a smokescreen for deeper issues within the administration. It allows the administration to dodge accountability, thereby reinforcing a culture of impunity. This pattern of behavior not only undermines public trust in the government but also creates an environment where serious errors are excused rather than corrected. The lack of accountability ultimately prevents necessary reforms and improvements.
The lack of consequence for past “mistakes” has seemingly emboldened the administration to continue this pattern of behavior. The Harvard conflict represents not just a single error but rather a symptom of a larger problem involving responsibility and accountability. The incident leaves many wondering about future consequences, given the administration’s track record of avoiding responsibility for its actions.