The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson

How Harvard Said No—and Made It Stick

• Molly McPherson

Share episode

This episode examines Harvard University’s April 2025 letter rejecting sweeping demands from the Trump administration—an act of resistance that was principled, measured, and strategically precise.

The statement didn’t chase headlines or play defense. It outlined the stakes, drew a legal and ethical line, and delivered a message that stood on mission—not fear.

Listeners will hear a breakdown of how the letter was structured, why it worked, and what it signals for anyone responsible for high-stakes communication. The episode explores how transparency, when guided by values, creates reputational resilience—even under political and public pressure. Essential listening for leaders, communicators, and institutions preparing to face conflict—and determined to do it without flinching.

Key Themes:

  • Framing a public statement when the pressure is high
  • Avoiding vague language and moral compromise in moments of risk
  • Why clarity and conviction are more protective than silence
  • Lessons in structure, tone, and timing from Harvard’s strategy

Mentioned in this Episode:

Want More Behind the Breakdown?
Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider’s hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.

Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson
 Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.media

Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting.


Follow & Connect with Molly:

© 2025 The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson

This episode is about a letter. Not a viral tweet on X, not a crisis press release. A letter from Harvard to the Harvard community. But make no mistake, it was meant for the Trump administration, for the press, the media, and for the courts. For every institution, college, university. Watching from the sidelines, it's almost as if Harvard University across from Boston, also near Lexington and Concord, wanted to start a bit of a revolution with this letter. Here's why I want to talk about it. Because it worked. Welcome Back to the PR breakdown. I'm your host, Molly McPherson, a host who noticed something that happened recently. In a moment of massive political pressure, Harvard didn't panic. They didn't posture. They stood still and stood firm. And the way they did it is a blueprint for every leader, every communicator, and every person who has ever asked, what am I supposed to say when speaking up feels dangerous? In this episode, I'm going to break down why this letter matters, what it teaches us about writing under pressure, and how you can do the same, professionally or personally, without caving to fear. Before we get into today's episode, I want to give you a roundup of what happened since this story first broke because it moves so fast. In early April, the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard University demanding sweeping changes tied to federal research funding. We're talking about everything from restructuring leadership and banning DEI programs to screening their students for so called, quote, hostility to American values. If you've been following the news lately, particularly around Boston, there's been a bit of a Boston calling with people in the area who are worried about their immigration status. They are worried about being surrounded by, by ICE agents and taken down. My algorithm is serving me. A lot of these posts happening around New England. I'm sure some of you saw the footage of the Tufts doctoral student who was ambushed on camera. A lot of students are worried, and I know this, speaking to my kids because they have friends who are in college right now, worried about their status, worried about being ambushed. Now back to this Harvard letter. Harvard responded on April 14 formally and publicly, saying no. Their exact words to the administration, quote, we will not surrender our independence or relinquish our constitutional rights, end quote. Such timing, particularly out of, well, technically Cambridge. But in Boston, April and Boston, a very revolutionary time. I always say it is the best month to be in Boston. Last week, the best week to be in Boston. Also a week that happens to have my birthday in it. We have Patriots Day falling on that Monday. We have the Boston Marathon. We have a great Red Sox run. In all my years in Boston or New England, I've usually popped into one or all of the above. It's quite a weekend, and there's certainly this whole feeling revolution in the air. I went to Fenway park this weekend. I always want to celebrate with the family. We showed up early and we could get on the field to get photographs with the Red Sox. If you head over to my Instagram, you can see two photos in particular, one with my daughter who forgot her laptop in my car. We did an influencer pose on the field. And then my son and I, we were walking around and my son noticed it's like, that's Veritech and Jason Veritek. Oh, my gosh. Going back to 2004. Oh, the red Sox World Series. My twins were born in mid September, so that Red sox run in 2004. Connor, my son, he's my only son. I made him stay up with me to watch the playoffs and the World Series so he could say when he was older that he watched the Red Sox win the World Series in 2004. But anyway, back to the story and going back to Harvard. On Friday night, I was back at Boston University. A friend of mine was nice enough to attend an improv show. My daughter, the journalism student. So we did have a recent conversation about how she's spending her time playing hockey and sorority and improv and. And working for B T V. And we had a conversation about focus. And did this conversation happen when she forgot her laptop in my car? Yes, it did. But when we were at the improv show, my friend who works at Harvard at one of the schools, it's one of the first things we talked about was this letter. She had stated to me that Alan Garber, the current president of Harvard, is very well liked. He's a very reasonable person. He took over in August 2024 after serving as interim following Claudine Day's resignation. Earlier that year, I did a podcast. Also wrote a Forbes article about that resignation. If you remember, three presidents from three colleges, MIT, Harvard and UPenn, needed to testify before Congress. They were forced to testify with talking points given to them, and Claudine Gay had to resign because of it. But my friend was saying that here are two presidents that were both well liked. So it's not surprising that Garber would pen a letter like this and take such a strong stand against the administration. Back to the timeline. April 14, when Harvard said no in the letter from President Garber. Within 24 hours, the administration announced it was freezing more than $2 billion in grants and contracts. Then came the threats to revoke Harvard's tax exempt status and block international student enrollment. By April 21, Harvard sued the federal government, calling the actions unconstitutional and a direct threat to academic freedom and institutional independence. It's so very Boston. So what started as a political pressure play has now become a full blown legal battle. Billions of dollars, federal power, the future of university autonomy. It's all on the table, not just for Harvard, but for other educational institutions as well. That's the backdrop for this episode and the reason why Bold communication matters more than ever right now. Before I dive into the particulars, I want to insert, as I often do, a disclaimer. Every week I try to pick a topic that passes what I call the water cooler test. Is this something the public is talking about, or should be talking about? Is it relevant? Is it timely? Is it trending? The Harvard story may not be dominating every headline or group chat right now, but to me it's a moment that reveals a crack in how this administration is operating. Let me be clear on this point, this episode, and my content in general is never about a political bias. I respect that there are different perspectives and ideologies at play in many of these political maneuvers out there, but particularly in this one as well. But if you know my ethics, if you followed how I approach power, transparency, and accountability, then you likely know where I stand on how this administration is handling itself. I'm not someone who leans into partisan takes. I'm independent in both thought and politics. But I'll be honest, this administration scares me. Not because of party lines, but because of its tactics. I'm drawn to disruptions. I study them because I've lived them. And what I've seen again and again, is that people who destroy or dismantle something, either privately or publicly, are often compensating for something privately. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes it's strategic. Often it's both. It becomes a cover for something else, something deeper. That's why I'm watching more closely than I ever have. I read the headlines every morning when I get up, I open up my phone very quietly and I go straight to political news. Not for the drama, but for the pattern recognition. Because there's always a strategy underneath the noise. And this time it's targeting higher education, but it's also targeting free expression and institutional independence. And that brings us back to Harvard. Now I know it's Harvard. Not that many people out in the world went to Harvard. Not that many people out in the world care about Harvard. Some People think it's a snooty institution. And why does it matter to me? I agree with you on all those points. Well, I'm not going to call it snooty, but certainly let's call it exclusive. It's not a universal type of an institution. However, it is an institution used to running independently. Right now it's Harvard. Right now it's immigrants. Right now it's federal jobs. This administration makes a lot of people feel very nervous. That's why looking at what is happening to Harvard is important. Here's the reason why this letter stopped me in my tracks. The first thing I noticed, it wasn't performative, what President Garber did with that letter. It wasn't about appeasement or optics. It was deliberate. It was structured. And it sounded like something a president of a university should say. Not someone trying to hold onto their job, but someone trying to protect something bigger. Harvard was able to do something that Columbia University and other schools haven't been able to do, and that is stand up for what it believed in. No social media rollout, no overly curated press moment, just a formal letter posted from the office of the President on Harvard's website, addressed to the Harvard community, but really addressed to everyone. And it started with something most people skip so often. It comes from emotion, and people want to dive into the emotion. In this letter, it was measured. The first part, the facts. Harvard reminded people of what was at stake. 75 years of research, partnership with the federal government, mutual investment, global innovation. Then, right in the middle of that timeline, they dropped the current moment. The Trump administration's late Friday night letter threatening to pull 9 billion in research funding unless Harvard complied with a sweeping list of demands. You know, I love Friday drops. They always mean something because people aren't paying attention on Fridays. So when things happen on Fridays, you should pay attention. Again, the line that really hit me in the letter, quote, the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. End quote. That's not bravado, that's strategy. Now, let's break down the statement structure. This was disciplined, layered and sharp. Here's the anatomy. One, Context. First, they open with facts. The history, the shared mission that grounds the audience. It reminds them of what's been built. Two, state the threat. Not dramatically, not defensively, just plainly. These demands threaten both academic freedom and constitutional rights. Three, draw the line. They stated clearly, we will not comply. No passive voice, no hedging anchor in values. They invoke their motto, veritas and unpacked what it means truth seeking, openness, reflection. That's not a throwaway. That's strategic messaging. Five, acknowledge complexity. They didn't ignore antisemitism. In fact, they detailed steps already taken on campus to address it. But they made it clear that work will not be co opted into compliance with unlawful overreach by the White House. And six, they end with ownership. Quote, the work of addressing our shortcomings is ours to define and undertake, end quote. Oh, I love that line so much. And I love ownership. I love accountability. It should always come in any type of response. Harvard didn't shift blame. They didn't over promise. They owned their lane and protected it. This is a letter of defiance, but defiance steeped in their mission and in their motto of veritas. This is a message about truth and standing up for what they believe in. This is a message that that creates trust. Here's what made this letter so powerful for me. It's the moral conflict. It wasn't just well argued. It was morally grounded. This wasn't Harvard versus Trump. This was about liberty versus control, truth versus manipulation, mission versus compliance. And it brought up the bigger issue I see with so many leaders right now, the fear of taking a stand, not because they don't have values, but because they're afraid of what those values might cost them. Now, at the time of this recording, the White House has given conflicting explanations, according to multiple reports. Senior Trump administration officials have described the letter as, quote, unauthorized and said it was sent in error, with some insiders claiming it was dispatched prematurely or intended only for internal use within the administration's antisemitism task force. Important to note the effectiveness of saying no. After Harvard publicly rejected the demands in the letter, a senior Trump official contacted the university to clarify that the letter was sent by mistake. They buckled. The discussions between Harvard and the administration are still ongoing, but the White House has not formally withdrawn the letter either, or its demands. In fact, a White House official told CNN that the administration, quote, stands by the letter. The White House may still be fighting, but you can tell who is the clear winner in this fight. And that's why bold statements work. How to lead with that is courageous leadership. Lead with your values, respond around your values. I know, and I get it. I get that leaders are worried about taking a stand. There is an inherent fear with every move that they make that involves a stakeholder that matters. But fear makes responses and statements soft, makes the responses vague, makes reputations unstable. Harvard didn't do that here. They said, essentially, here's what we believe. Here's the line and we're not moving. And here's the thing, when you speak from that place, missions plus values plus law. Or in your case, it could be policy, regulation, whatever it is, it's very hard to get canceled. And I have air quotes saying that because even if the backlash comes, you've already decided who you are. It will not overtake you. Now what can you do with this story? What can you do right now? If you're a leader or you're a communicator listening to this message or even personally, you are under attack by what you perceive to be a bigger power or person with more power. Here's a framework I recommend when writing a bold, high stakes statement. Start with shared ground. What history or values connect you with your stakeholder, with your audience. Describe that moment clearly. What happened? What's the pressure? Say what you will not do. Draw the line and use plain language. Then explain why. Anchor the decision in your mission and your values, not in defensiveness. Remember, this is business. It isn't personal. The Godfather Acknowledge complexity. Yes, some issues require nuance, but nuance shouldn't paralyze clarity and end with ownership. Tell people what you're doing next and that you're willing to be accountable for it. Always be accountable for your role in what's taking place. This is how you protect your credibility. This is how you defend your reputation before the backlash defines it for you. The Harvard letter isn't just a university standing up to the government. It's a reminder that leadership isn't about avoiding criticism, it's about being prepared for it. And the best way to prepare is to know what you stand for and to say it loud when it matters most. You don't need a PR team or a legal department to do that. You need clarity, you need courage, and you need a little strategy. You need me. I laugh, but it's true. This is what I believe in. This is what I talk about every single week. This is how I decide my water cooler topics. It's the device that I use. Talk about current events and yeah, talk about things that we see in the news, even with celebrities. But there is always a core message there. Because I do not do my work based on ego based on money. I do my work based on my value system. That's why it feels so good to do what I do. If this topic hit home. If you're a leader or communicator who felt like a boulder rolled off your chest as you listened to me, I've got more for you on this topic. On Substack. Head over to Substack and follow me at Molly McPherson. You can read my article. This is not what Harvard's bold statement can teach every leader. You can read it. You can share it. If you're a communicator and you are working with a leadership team right now who's worried about the backlash, I urge you to read that article. It was written for you. Especially if you've got a reluctant leader who avoids conflict until it's too late. And if you want the actual template, how to write a statement like Harvard step by step, it's available to my members in Substack. How to write a bold statement when stakes are high. Just head over there right now and you can download that guide. It's a guide that walks you through the exact structure I use with my own clients, including one right now who's preparing a speech for a high pressure situation. You better believe I am using this template. My substack membership. It's $7 a month, $70 for a year. This template alone is worth will work for you. But I encourage you, especially communicators, join my Substack membership because that's where I'm sharing a lot of my templates. I really want to help other communicators out there. You'll find links to both of the pieces in the show notes so you can start writing statements that don't just survive backlash, but stand through it. Because in 2025, staying silent isn't the safe move. Standing clear is. But first, before I go another moment, I posted a story to my Instagram account asking if anyone would have a moment in their schedule to fill out a survey create by my middle Kate for a class she's graduating from Loyola Chicago soon in a couple weeks. I wanted to help her with this last assignment and believe me, I struggled with it. But I thought why not? And one of the reasons why I gave in is because Kate scored an amazing job. I am so proud of her. I'm still on cloud nine. Any parent out there who has had a child come up to their senior year of college and you wanna make sure that they land somewhere and this economy right now, what a difficult time to get a job. So I am so happy and so proud of Kate. So I felt like I had to do this for her. So I wanted to thank some of the people who filled out that survey. So I want to thank these followers in particular at It's Just Isaac. He told me that he remembers these days in school, what his major was and why he would do it. I also have to thank Jason Farr. He's a comedian and an actor. He also hosts the podcast There It Is Is. And he shared it to his stories. And he mentioned that his friend Donna filled it out as well. Thank you. Donna also wanted to mention Nicole, who said she tried, but she was a Yankees fan. So I completely get it. And then there's my second mom, Barb McIntyre, who wrote back and said that she would do it and pass it on. Natasha, thank you from First Impressions Media. And Jennifer Parody as well. Anyone who mentioned, like Jennifer, about having middles and how we do these things as mothers, thank you to my followers and thank you to my listeners for listening to the podcast this week. That's all for this week on the podcast. Thanks so much for listening. Bye for now.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Molly McPherson

Host

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.