As the ink dries on personal apology letters and records change on athletic websites, our University enters a new era. We have gained the reinstatement of $175 million in federal funding. But what have we lost?
The freedom to make our own decisions. The ability to protect our students. The foundation of a strong moral compass. Penn’s recent compliance with the demands of 1968 Wharton graduate and President Donald Trump’s administration has proven that the University is willing to sacrifice its values under pressure. In allowing the federal government to make a decision that belongs to our community, Penn has violated our trust in a way that may be impossible to restore.
This editorial isn’t about the swim team. It isn’t about NCAA guidelines or biological sex characteristics. It is about a precedent that Penn administrators have set. Our administration is willing to negotiate with a government that has proven hostile to human rights. In doing so, it affirmed the belief that the Department of Education’s actions and demands were at all logical or legal, and gave them power over our internal operations.
After months of uncertainty, the return of this research funding may offer us a false sense of stability. Penn can argue that with these few concessions, we are now able to proceed with essential research projects that make our world safer and healthier. It might feel like nothing has changed.
But the restored funding should not bring about a breath of fresh air or a sigh of relief. We should see it as a warning signal — because if Penn was willing to agree to these demands, what’s next?
Penn veiled this response as compulsory. But there was a choice. Our administration could have said no, fighting in court to keep the government out of our athletic policies. It’s true that there is fear associated with fighting. After standing up to the Trump administration’s curriculum demands, Harvard University now faces billion-dollar funding freezes and suspended international enrollment, jeopardizing its influence, prestige, and affordability. These consequences are dire, and we have no interest in pretending they are not.
But in the following decades, people will remember Harvard as the school that stood up to tyranny. Penn — if this pattern continues — will be remembered as the school that welcomed it with open arms.
There is an argument that if we had not appeased the Trump administration, it could have retaliated even more severely, revoking our visa sponsorship powers or freezing more funding. These results were possible, and they would have been heartbreaking. Yet even after conceding, they could still occur.
Trump is going after international students regardless of where they go to school. He has pledged to revoke the visas of Chinese nationals and has restricted the extension of student visas to seven countries on his travel ban list. Banning transgender athletes from athletic participation does not protect our international community — it only emboldens their attacker.
When Northwestern University came under fire for its handling of antisemitism, it repeatedly pledged to prevent discrimination on its campus and published a progress report detailing new policies specifically focused on targeting antisemitism. The Education Department still froze $709 million in federal research funding to the university and has given no indication that it will restore the money.
There are strings attached to every negotiation. Our concessions to the Trump administration do not automatically mean that the government will refrain from targeting our institution. On the contrary, they may perceive us as more vulnerable to their overreach. Just like Columbia University, we could be backed into a corner under threat of retaliation.
Appeasement never ends the pressure. It escalates it. Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern — these institutions made different choices and still face consequences. What’s to stop the same from happening here, at Penn?
There are certain things that make Penn what it is: our diverse student body, including trans and international students; our groundbreaking research; and our strong commitment to advocacy. These are our core values. And they should never be used as bargaining chips by the federal government.
Penn cannot afford to make decisions based on fears about what Trump may do. The president acts erratically, and our University has mirrored that behavior instead of upholding its values to preserve stability.
Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have begun their crackdowns with an attack on universities — beacons of dissent and social progress. We can’t ignore the warning signs. Penn’s actions are exactly what it looks like to give in to extortion disguised as governance.
The attacks won’t stop — not for at least another 1,200 days. More threats will come, and when they do, our students deserve active protections rather than silent concessions. Penn made the wrong decision this time. Next time, for the good of our community, it must make the right one.
THE DAILY PENNSYLVANIAN SUMMER EDITORIAL BOARD consists of summer staffers in the Opinion Department, led by the DP’s Summer Opinion Editor Ingrid Holmquist. Questions and comments should be directed to letters@thedp.com.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
