Their exteriors may be ivy clad, but that façade on America’s elite universities cloaks more than red bricks – secrecy, power politics and globalist attitudes are hidden as well.
President Donald Trump has banned international students from attending Harvard University, citing national security concerns. The move has sparked widespread condemnation from academics and foreign governments, alike. They claim it could damage America’s global influence and reputation for academic openness. At stake, they contend, is not just Harvard’s global appeal, but the premise of open academic exchange that has long defined higher education in the US.
But precisely how “open” is Harvard, especially about its admissions policies? Every year, highly qualified students from the US – many with top-tier SAT or GMAT test scores – are turned away, while foreign students flood into elite institutions. Moreover, students from families in the top 1% financially are more than twice as likely to attend an elite university than those from middle-class families with comparable test scores. Critics argue that behind prestigious brands like the Ivy League lies an opaque system shaped by wealth, legacy preferences, DEI imperatives, geopolitical politics and outright bribes.
George Soros, in a speech at the World Economic Forum, has pledged $1 billion to fund a new university network to counter the spread of populist nationalism as opposed to his vision of a globalist government. Tertiary educational institutions increasingly foster left-wing ideologies that undermine intellectual diversity and create the illusion of a liberal arts education. The philanthropist seeks to open up elite university admissions to his view of “qualified applicants” who would push his left-wing oriented Open Society narrative of globalism.
Soft power politics
China’s swift condemnation of Trump’s policy adds a degree of geopolitical irony to the debate. Why would Beijing feign concern for “America’s international standing” amid a bitter trade war? The domestic standing of US universities has already been tarnished by a “woke psychosis,” which under Biden metastasized to all branches of the federal government.
So, what is behind China’s recent criticism? The answer lies in the unwritten (and unspoken) rules of soft power politics: Ivy League campuses are battlegrounds for influence. The US “deep state” has long recruited foreign students — subsidized by American taxpayers — to promote its interests abroad. China is playing the same game, leveraging elite US universities to co-opt future leaders on its side of the geopolitical divide.
As of this writing, a federal judge has granted Harvard’s request for a temporary injunction against Trump’s proposed ban. But here’s the thing – there is one common sense solution that certain parties to this saga are keen to avoid:
Schools which accept public funds should open their admissions policies to public scrutiny.
Harvard and other elite institutions are among such recipients. Yet, the same institutions that champion open borders and open society have zero tolerance for being open about their admissions policies. That would open up a Pandora’s Box of awareness surrounding the global subterfuge that is systemically undermining the concept of nation-state sovereignty in the world – fostering instead — the globalist ideas of the WEF.
Concentration of wealth and alumni networks
Ivy League schools (contrary to the modern liberal pablum they espouse) have a vested interest in perpetuating two things: rising wealth and educational inequalities. The reason for this seeming inconsistency? It’s the mechanism through which they remain atop global academic rankings at the expense of less-endowed peer institutions.
Elite universities like Harvard, Princeton, Stanford and MIT dominate lists of institutions with the most ultra-wealthy alumni (net worth exceeding $30 million). Harvard, alone, has 18,000 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) alumni, representing 4% of the global UHNW population.
These alumni networks provide mega donations, corporate partnerships and exclusive opportunities — reinforcing institutional wealth. The logic is simple: If the alma mater’s admissions policy is biased in their favor, it is to their advantage to ante up, at least for the sake of future generations who will perpetuate this exclusivist cycle – in this exclusive club.
The total endowment of Princeton University – $34.1 billion in 2024 – translates to $3.71 million per student, enabling generous financial aid and construction of state-of-the-art facilities. Less endowed institutions cannot compete on this scale.
Rankings, graft, and ominous trends
Global university rankings (QS, THE, etc.) heavily favor institutions with large endowments, high spending rates per student and wealthy student bodies. For example, 70% of the top 50 US News & World Report Best Colleges correlate with universities boasting the largest endowments and the highest percentage of students from the top 1% of wealthy families.
According to the Social Mobility Index (SMI), ascending the rankings requires tens of millions in annual spending and tuition hikes which exacerbate the very thing these institutions claim to abhor – inequality. Lower-ranked schools which prioritize affordability and access are routinely marginalized in traditional rankings which reward wealth over social impact. Social mobility suffers as the global wealth divide not only expands but becomes unbridgeable. To make matters worse, the global ranking system itself thrives on graft, with some institutions being favored and data being inflated.
Yet, government policies increasingly favor elite institutions. Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation will undoubtedly stimulate the economy, but it may also further widen gaps by benefiting corporate-aligned universities while reducing public funding for others. This move was generally welcomed by the Ivy League, at least until Trump took on Harvard.
Nobody seems to be learning from previous contretemps – like “legacy admissions” — staring us in the face. Has ‘learning’ become merely coincidental to the Ivy League – is it just about the power and privilege money and influence can buy?
It seems that technocrats from America’s elite institutions operate as a bureaucratic network, siphoning public and private wealth into elite hands. With regard to the American ethos of merit-based advancement and equal opportunity, what socioeconomic model are these institutions bequeathing to America and its youth?
And before we leave our discussion on secrecy and “openness” – how is this for irony? A star Harvard professor who built her career researching “honesty and ethical behavior” was just fired and stripped of tenure – for fabricating her own data. Do they even teach ethics anymore in the Ivy League?
