Harvard University squandered its brand as a world-class institution dedicated to hiring the world’s best and brightest.

It’s not a problem we can ignore: Ivy League graduates make or break policy in America.

Just look at the ranks of White House staffers.

The state of our nation’s oldest institution is tied to our nation’s well-being, so we must ask: Is there hope for Harvard?

Many of us who have watched Harvard’s handling of the antisemitism on its campus and the steady string of plagiarism cases among its faculty and administrators blame the social-engineer class that’s elevated diversity, equity and inclusion above academic excellence defined by the pursuit of truth.

The brief and controversial tenure of the university’s recently resigned president, Claudine Gay, serves as proof.

Gay confirmed at Harvard Divinity School’s September convocation what we’d all known or suspected for quite some time: Harvard University had “expanded well beyond” the pursuit of truth to the pursuit of social justice.

The irony is not lost on me, one of the victims of her career-long use of plagiarism to secure the coveted title of “first black president” of the university last summer.

But by December, Gay’s plagiarism was found out.

It was the unspoken rules of the very world the social-engineer class crafted for her that opened her up to the scrutiny prompting her downfall.

It all unraveled quickly following her disastrous congressional testimony.

Rep. Elise Stefanik gave Gay multiple opportunities to offer moral clarity about Harvard’s disciplinary procedures for those harassing Jewish students with chants of “From the river to the sea” or screams of “Intifada,” which is a call for their deaths.

Yet Gay’s dedication to the relativism that social justice demands left her unable or unwilling to state any penalties for threatening Jewish students.

While onlookers were reeling from her shocking testimony, bold reporters gave Gay an embarrassing caveat to her coveted title of “first black president”: Some embraced my “serial plagiarist” phrasing.

No fewer than 47 instances of pilfering other people’s work made her worthy of that description.

Despite Gay’s serious moral failings, Harvard retained her as a faculty member with about the same pay — $900,000.

To cut her loose completely would further embarrass the once-world-class institution: It would be even clearer she was hired in the shortest presidential search in Harvard’s illustrious history with relaxed standards that did not include an examination of her scholarship.

And she wasn’t the only one to benefit from this hiring practice.

Gay is not Harvard’s only DEI disaster — City Journal’s Chris Rufo identified two other Harvard administrators who plagiarized their dissertations or other scholarly publications: Chief Diversity Officer Sherri Ann Charleston and Office for Gender Equity Title IX Coordinator Shirley Greene.

Unfortunately, these women also happen to be black women.

But Harvard has had plagiarists of other races, and some remain in their positions.

Does the school have any clear standards for enforcing its own prohibitions against plagiarism?

It seems to be encouraging it now.

In all fairness, such a move is consistent with its explicit evolution away from truth toward social justice.

When Gay stepped down, the university issued a puzzling statement that mocked academic integrity and contradicted its motto: “First and foremost, we thank President Gay for her deep and unwavering commitment to Harvard and to the pursuit of academic excellence.”

Harvard’s motto is “Veritas,” Latin for “Truth.” Certainly, there was no truth in Harvard’s statement and its subsequent decision to describe Gay’s actions as merely “duplicative language.”

That’s entered the lexicon as an excusable offense less egregious than old-fashioned plagiarism.

To add insult to injury, both Harvard and Gay blamed racism and right-wing extremists for her transgressions.

Gay made seven corrections to three of her published works, per the latest reporting.

That still leaves 40 instances of duplicative language that haven’t been touched, including her pilfering of my ideas in her dissertation and early work on black representation in Congress.

Harvard’s brand suffers because Gay and other plagiarists remain on the faculty instructing students and interacting with the campus community.

What will it be like to take Gay’s African American Studies courses?

Can she teach her students anything about academic integrity and standards that will help prepare them for the positions of power Harvard graduates have historically enjoyed?

No, I am afraid the students will be fed the standard fare of black victimization and systemic racism.

High-achieving black and Hispanic students will suffer the most, at first, from the lowered academic standards and social engineering at the root of Harvard’s decline.

Then all the rest of us will suffer, more than we have already, unless Harvard and other Ivy League institutions correct course.

Carol M. Swain is a senior fellow at the Institute for Faith and Culture and the coauthor of “The Adversity of Diversity: How the Supreme Court’s Decision to Remove Race from College Admissions Criteria Will Doom Diversity Programs.”