President Trump and Harvard University are at daggers drawn, and the battle promises to play out on the national stage for some time. Trump wants Harvard to change its ways, not only when it comes to the lax handling of disruptive demonstrations and antisemitic harassment, but also in the matter of the university’s pervasive leftist bias. Harvard, which seemed at least tentatively open to changes in its disciplinary practices, has drawn the line at the Trump administration’s insistence on monitoring and redressing its ideological imbalance. With virtually the whole of academia in chorus, America’s oldest university boldly insists on defending its First Amendment rights and academic freedom.

Harvard’s protestations of academic freedom ring hollow. Like the rest of the academy, the school has abused its liberties for decades, not to create a marketplace of ideas — the very purpose of academic freedom — but to consolidate an intellectual monopoly of the left. On the other side, however, the Trump administration’s more ambitious demands would put the federal government in effective charge of the intellectual inner workings of a private university. Although Harvard has richly earned that rebuke and that discipline, the Roberts Court may well be reluctant to entrench so troubling an arrangement in law.

From the administration’s perspective, Trump may be headed for a win either way. The Court may say no, but the public will vote yes to a battle against corrupt elites. On the other hand, a Supreme Court defeat, in combination with other possible legal and policy setbacks down the road, may saddle the administration and its potential successor with an air of overreach and arrogance.

The most interesting commentary to date on the standoff comes from longtime Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz says that a negotiated settlement is both likely and necessary, and points to signs that things may already be headed in that direction. From a deep insider perspective, Dershowitz also testifies to Harvard’s long-standing bias and intellectual corruption. He rightly attributes Harvard’s problems to its tenured faculty, “whose rehabilitation is nearly impossible and utterly impractical.” “Harvard’s culture is infected by a deeply rooted cultural bias that even President Trump cannot quickly cure,” Dershowitz concludes.

Yet there may be a way to solve the problem far more quickly than most suspect — and in a manner that creates a model for the academy as a whole. The Trump administration’s most controversial demands involve extensive monitoring and management of faculty hiring at the university’s many independent schools, departments, and programs. Given the slow pace of normal academic turnover, even Harvard’s willingness to enter into a de facto federal receivership would take a decade, at best, to actually change the school. And this is not to mention the endless occasions for public controversy as faculty pushed back against their federal overseers.

There is another way, however, much quicker, less messy, and more pervasive in its effect. The solution is suggested by model legislation called General Education Act (GEA), a limited version of which just became law in Utah, and which is likely to be considered by other states in 2026. (I am a co-author of the model GEA.)

The GEA works by establishing an independent School of General Education, where the governing dean and the newly recruited faculty are committed to a traditional “great books” approach. No doubt such a faculty would proportionately include more conservatives than are typical in academia, yet by no means will the scholars be of a single political stripe. There are still plenty of old-fashioned liberals who believe in a great books approach.

The distinctive feature of this plan is that the new School of General Education is put in charge of teaching a set of great books and Western Civ–focused courses required of every student at the university in question. This magnifies the reach of a relatively limited number of new academic appointments, because every student has to take at least a few classic-style courses taught by teachers committed to traditionalist methods. Also, the independence of the School of General Education means that its hiring and governance cannot be hampered by hostile faculty or departments.

Although the model General Education Act was originally designed to be put into practice on a single campus of a public state university system, there is no reason the model couldn’t be adapted to a place like Harvard. With Harvard’s resources and prestige, it would be easy to recruit a sterling faculty of educational traditionalists to the new School of General Education. A couple of courses offered by the school (Western Civ and American History/Civics, for example) could be required of every undergraduate at Harvard. The school could also offer an undergraduate major analogous to the interdisciplinary majors currently offered by Harvard’s Committee on Degrees in Social Studies and its Committee on Degrees in History and Literature. A graduate program would turn out Ph.D.s who could teach in other similar programs in the states and, perhaps, if the model succeeds, at other private universities.

The new School of General Education would of course sponsor its own program of speakers and debates. Professor Dershowitz reports that since October 7, he has “never once been invited to present my centrist pro-Israel position on campus.” I’ll bet he’d be invited by the School of General Education.

In this way, without the need for messy and controversial micromanagement of existing academic programs and departments, a relatively modest cohort of new faculty hires within just a few years could change the fabric of the university. Every Harvard undergraduate would be touched to some degree by the new school. Its undergraduate major would provide the sort of choice for conservative students that doesn’t currently exist at Harvard. And the graduate program would turn out young faculty who could help to spread the innovation across the country.

The trick here would be for Harvard to provide persuasive assurances that the dean and senior faculty recruited to run the new school really would provide an educational alternative to Harvard’s monolithic intellectual orthodoxy. That will be a challenge for negotiators but, in any case, a challenge far less complicated than the micromanaged federal receivership proposed in the administration’s demand letter to Harvard. Harvard’s faculty will never consent to all this, of course. Most especially, they’ll object to a college-wide requirement in Western Civilization and the great books. But the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers just might overrule them.

Again, it’s entirely possible that neither side will ultimately see a voluntary compromise as in its interest. The Trump administration, confident of public support, may prefer to take its chances with the courts. Harvard and its faculty already believe that the university will prevail before the courts. Their thirst for judicial vindication, and their willful blindness to the reasons for the academy’s sinking public reputation, may preclude a negotiated settlement.

But if America’s negotiator-in-chief wants to walk away with a huge victory, and if the leaders of the American academy come to realize that they cannot flourish as enemies of half the country, a solution is available. And if, as is now being reported, the administration’s original demand letter was sent prematurely, the need for a better way forward is all the greater.