From Gut Courses to Gentrification: Harvard vs. the American Worker
Harvard has long offered a broad range of academic programs, including remedial and introductory-level courses such as Math 5, designed to support students with diverse educational backgrounds. Alongside its more rigorous offerings like Math 55, famously portrayed in the David Fincher film The Social Network, the university maintains a commitment to academic accessibility and curricular diversity.
- From Gut Courses to Gentrification: Harvard vs. the American Worker
- Moral Decay and Class Contempt: The Price of Harvard Inclusion
- Redefining Poverty: Harvard’s $200K ‘Working Class’ Fantasy
- Subsidizing the World: Harvard Aid, Foreign Seats, and Legacy Admissions
- Harvard’s War on the Forgotten American
- From the Charles to the Rustbelt: Reclaiming Innovation for Real Americans
- Explore Books Written by Our Contributors
- End the Gravy Train: Let Harvard Stand—or Fall—on Its Own
Back in my day (in the 1980s), Math 5 was actually taught by undergraduates who were paid a handsome fee of $5,000 per course. It has, since the pandemic, however been revised and updated. According to the website of Harvard’s math department: “This course is appropriate for students with and without calculus experience. Techniques from high school algebra are used right away and students who have taken a break from mathematics can expect to spend extra time reviewing them.”
The “Course Notes” on the web page further describe: “This is a version of Math MA that meets 5 days a week. The extra support will target foundational skills in algebra, geometry, and quantitative reasoning that will help you unlock success in Math MA. Students will be identified for enrollment in Math MA5 via a skill check before the start of the term.” While Harvard rejects the claim that it offers remedial math, its pre-calculus subject matter and need for daily immersion suggests it is indeed very much remedial.
Reducing federal funding could be seen as a move to encourage financial independence and accountability among elite institutions.
The course news made headlines this year when expanding from a single semester to a full-year course. As The New York Post headlined, “Harvard University: The Ivy League teaching remedial math.” President Trump, of course, enthusiastically jumped into the fray: “I want Harvard to be great again. Harvard announced two weeks ago that they’re going to teach remedial mathematics. Remedial, meaning they’re going to teach low grade mathematics like two plus two is four. How did these people get into Harvard if they can’t do basic mathematics?”
The university also features academic concentrations in various fields of identity and cultural studies, such as African and African American Studies, Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, and Middle Eastern Studies. These fields have been the subject of political and cultural debates, particularly in relation to their perspectives on global issues and historical narratives.
Among more traditional departments, the Department of Government (whose students are affectionately known as “Gov jocks” on campus) has educated many legacy students including prominent public figures such as Edward “Teddy” Kennedy. His academic journey and personal controversies have been widely documented and remain part of the public discourse surrounding the privileged status of alumni legacies at Harvard.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider Harvard’s role as a federally subsidized institution.
In an effort to provide a more progressive and interdisciplinary approach to political and social theory, Harvard also offers a Social Studies program, which blends political science, sociology, and philosophy.
While its curriculum has drawn criticism from some for perceived ideological leanings, supporters argue it fosters critical engagement with modern societal issues and a necessary alternative to the Government department.
As legal disputes between the federal government and Harvard continue—amid broader debates about affirmative action and public accountability—questions remain about the role elite universities should play in American public life. Critics argue that institutions such as Harvard have not sufficiently demonstrated that their financial and policy priorities align with those of the broader American public, particularly working-class families affected by rising living costs in Cambridge and neighboring Somerville (once derisively referred to by Harvard students as “Slummerville,” but now out of reach to working families).
Moral Decay and Class Contempt: The Price of Harvard Inclusion
The issue goes deeper than debates about antisemitism—it raises broader questions about equity and access. Concerns have been voiced that some admission practices may favor wealthy international or legacy applicants, sometimes at the expense of academically qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
In past decades, working-class students often contributed to university life through programs like Work-Study with its infamous (and now discontinued) “Dorm Crew,” where working class students were assigned to the cleaning crews of upper-class residential houses as well as freshman dorms in Harvard Yard. Dorm Crew team members performed essential service roles in residence halls, which could be accompanied by social challenges, including humiliating taunting by wealthier peers. These experiences, while not always recognized, shaped important discussions about inclusion and mutual respect on campus. Harvard has in recent years taken great strides to bring this informal internal caste system to an end, offering expanded financial aid for working families.
Residential life has also reflected the broader social dynamics of the time, now assigned randomly by The Rising Sophomore Housing Lottery (as described on the website of the Harvard Housing Office), but previously self-selecting.
Back then, residence houses became known as informal communities for particular student subgroups—reflecting, but also sometimes reinforcing, broader patterns of social comfort and exclusion whether Elliot House (known as a bastion for legacies), Adams House (known for being the most gay-friendly) and Currier House at far-away Radcliffe Quad (known in my day for being akin to internal exile “where the Third World meets the Nerd World,” but which since recent renovations is now popular for its abundance of single dorm rooms and its highly regarded dining hall).
Redefining Poverty: Harvard’s $200K ‘Working Class’ Fantasy
Today, Harvard rightfully celebrates its generously expanded financial support—with free tuition policies for middle-income families—alongside efforts to foster a more inclusive environment. However, questions remain about whether these measures fully address historical imbalances or cultural divides within the campus community.
As The Harvard Gazette reported earlier this year: “Harvard University President Alan M. Garber and Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Hopi Hoekstra on Monday announced that Harvard College will be free for students from families with annual incomes of $100,000 or less, and tuition-free for students from families with annual incomes of $200,000 or less. This significant expansion of financial aid, which begins in the 2025–26 academic year, will make Harvard affordable to more students than ever, especially from middle-income families.”
Private universities with multi-billion-dollar endowments that are perceived by critics as favoring affluent or international applicants over working-class Americans.
Garber added, “Putting Harvard within financial reach for more individuals widens the array of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives that all of our students encounter, fostering their intellectual and personal growth. By bringing people of outstanding promise together to learn with and from one another, we truly realize the tremendous potential of the University.”
As The Harvard Gazette reported: “The expansion builds on more than two decades of investment in undergraduate financial aid at Harvard, beginning in 2004 with the launch of the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, which completely covered tuition, food, and housing costs for students from families with annual incomes of $40,000 or less. This threshold has increased four times since then—from $60,000 in 2006 to $85,000 in 2023.”
Harvard’s new financial aid policy has drawn criticism in a March 27, 2024 op-ed in the Crimson, Harvard’s famed undergraduate daily paper: “Harvard’s Financial Aid Is Anti-Middle Class” for how it defines “working poor” through what can be described as a Ivy-tinted lens—setting the income threshold for a completely free ride at $200,000 per year, and for a tuition-free education at $100,000. While the Crimson commentator is worried this puts a strain on middle-income families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 per year, my concern is these lofty benchmarks include not only middle-income families but also households that many working Americans would consider quite affluent.
Most families from rural or economically distressed regions—those most impacted by globalization and long-term industrial decline—earn far less than this amount. Data published by the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), a federal-state government partnership, show rural family incomes average just over $62,000 per year, while in Appalachia it’s just over $50,000. Critics could argue that the new policy may allow relatively privileged students to benefit disproportionately from financial aid, while lower-income students from overlooked regions continue to face barriers to access.
According to Harvard, the expansion will allow roughly 86 percent of U.S. families to qualify for financial aid.
Subsidizing the World: Harvard Aid, Foreign Seats, and Legacy Admissions
Left unmentioned is that, while 86% of American families may now qualify for financial aid, 27.2% of Harvard’s student body is composed of international students (up from 19.6% since the academic year 2006–07) and over 30% is composed of “ALDC” students (short for Athletes, Legacies, Dean’s interest list members, or Children of faculty and staff). Many ALDC and foreign students are too affluent to qualify for Harvard’s financial aid programs, and as foreign students are generally ineligible for both federal and state student financial aid, admits in these categories typically pay full tuition out of pocket.
This raises questions about how far the expanded aid will go in addressing access for American students, given that nearly one-third of available admissions slots are occupied by international applicants and nearly a second-third for legacies and other children of privilege. (Harvard’s data on international enrollment is publicly available on its International Students webpage. Harvard’s ALDC numbers have been reported by Politico: “And though just 5 percent of applicants are an ALDC, they constitute approximately 30 percent of students admitted to Harvard each year.”)
President Trump has suggested capping foreign enrollment at 15%. Others argue that institutions receiving federal funding should prioritize American citizens in admissions. These views reflect broader debates about access, equity, and the role of public support in higher education.
The growth in international and ALDC admissions Harvard has coincided with an increase in reported grade inflation, raising questions among some observers about the long-term implications for academic rigor and alumni engagement.
Harvard’s War on the Forgotten American
In 2007, as part of its financial aid reforms, Harvard eliminated loans, providing all financial assistance in the form of grants. It also removed home equity from calculations used to determine a family’s ability to pay for college. Since launching the Harvard Financial Aid Initiative, the university has awarded more than $3.6 billion in undergraduate financial aid. The financial aid budget for the 2025–26 academic year stands at $275 million. Currently, 55% of undergraduates receive financial aid, with their families paying an average of $15,700 for the 2023–24 academic year.
These figures are noteworthy. Still, 45% of undergraduates pay full tuition and often arrive with well-established private networks—connections forged through country clubs, ski resorts, and private schools, as well as family ties to previous Harvard graduates. This legacy network has existed for generations and continues to shape the composition of the student body. And as The Harvard Crimson reported in 2023: “According to the incoming class survey for the Class of 2025, roughly 31 percent of students who had one or more parents attend Harvard reported a family income of $500,000 or more.”
Given this, some critics ask why Harvard continues to allocate admission slots to full-paying international students when so many financially disadvantaged American students still struggle to gain access. If 86% of American families now qualify for financial aid, shouldn’t the university prioritize admitting more of them—especially those from working-class backgrounds?
This debate has become a focal point in the ongoing dispute between Harvard University and the Trump administration, which advocates on behalf of the millions of Americans who feel left behind. At its core, the issue raises broader questions about equity, access, and institutional responsibility in higher education.
From the Charles to the Rustbelt: Reclaiming Innovation for Real Americans
President Trump has expressed his determination to challenge what he views as Harvard’s overreliance on federal funding, which he argues is not aligned with the interests of American taxpayers. He has criticized the university for what he sees as a lack of accessibility for students from rural regions—referred to in Harvard Admissions as “sparse country,” a term criticized by the Legal Ruralism blog for its “derision of rurality and conflation with whiteness”—arguing that such communities represent an essential part of the American fabric.
Explore Books Written by Our Contributors
Harvard, meanwhile, has increasingly admitted international students who pay full tuition, which some critics see as a financial strategy. These admissions, they argue, may also shift the demographic makeup of the student body in ways that raise questions about equity and representation.
Similar concerns have been raised about federally funded research labs affiliated with the university. These facilities could instead be located in economically distressed regions like the American Rust Belt, where they would contribute to economic revitalization and create job opportunities for American workers. This would re-prioritize domestic hires over reliance on foreign workers through programs like the H‑1B visa.
One controversial incident involving a researcher at Harvard Medical School, who was detained for four months for failing to declare biological materials upon entry into the U.S. and has since been indicted by a federal grand jury for smuggling in undeclared frog embryos for research purposes, has been cited by some as emblematic of broader concerns about oversight and compliance. However, such cases remain the exception, and due process is critical in addressing any alleged violations.
End the Gravy Train: Let Harvard Stand—or Fall—on Its Own
Private universities with multi-billion-dollar endowments that are perceived by critics as favoring affluent or international applicants over working-class Americans — including through admissions policies associated with DEI and Legacy preferences — are increasingly under scrutiny. These private institutions could instead be excluded from federal research funding unless they demonstrate broader and more equitable access, or such funds could be permanently channeled through public institutions of higher learning where admissions have long been merit-based, and which lack the legacy-culture associated with the Ivy League and other elite private institutions.
President Trump has positioned himself as an advocate for redirecting public investment toward new research initiatives across the American heartland. These would focus on fostering innovation through training programs accessible to a broader cross-section of Americans, particularly those from underrepresented or economically distressed regions.
Perhaps it’s time to reconsider Harvard’s role as a federally subsidized institution, and to encourage it to operate more independently from taxpayer support by phasing out federal funding altogether. Harvard’s charter, penned in 1650 by Henry Dunster, empowered the university to accept donations and property, fueling its growth into a modern financial powerhouse with an endowment exceeding $50 billion — inviting questions about whether continued public subsidies are warranted.
From this perspective, reducing federal funding could be seen as a move to encourage financial independence and accountability among elite institutions. Such a shift could help level the educational playing field and support broader national priorities.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Politics and Rights Review.
