From SFFA to Surveillance State | Opinion - The Harvard Crimson

News

Meet the Nine Candidates Running for Harvard’s Board of Overseers

News

Jeffrey Epstein, Gerald Chan Coordinated on Proposed Tsinghua University Campus in Boston

News

Harvard Faculty Cut A Grades by Nearly 7 Percentage Points in Fall

News

Seven Harvard Affiliates Named 2027 Schwarzman Scholars

News

Public Health Faculty Slam Harvard’s Removal of FXB Center Director Mary Bassett

As a recent college admissions survivor, I can’t imagine why anyone would voluntarily join such a spectacle — but apparently, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wants in on the action.

Last month, the Department of Justice sued Harvard for failing to provide information on individual applicants, ostensibly to ensure compliance with the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision that deemed race-conscious admissions unconstitutional.

The DOJ’s lawsuit amounts to a blatant assault on the principles of liberal democracy; the right to privacy is the necessary foundation of both good citizenship and a democratic political system. Should Harvard comply with the current demands and hand over students’ personal data, it will be complicit in the larger authoritarian project of surveilling and targeting dissidents. For the sake of American democracy, it must not do so.

In keeping with the erratic nature of many of the administration’s attacks on diversity initiatives in higher education, the details of the newest lawsuit are fuzzy. The complaint specifically mentions correspondences about applicants’ race and gestures towards “individualized” applicant data. That seems to suggest standardized testing scores, essays, and extracurriculars are all on the table.

As my colleagues on the Editorial Board and I have pointed out, the DOJ’s request appears, at its best, unnecessary. There is no legitimate reason to conclude that SFFA compliance need be determined by individual level data. I find it difficult to believe that the DOJ’s request amounts to anything other than another malicious attempt to attack higher education and students of color.

In the past years, violating student privacy for political gain has become a frequent occurrence. Individual students have been doxxed and had their private information distributed publicly. Beyond our gates, the federal government has targeted students with arrest ostensibly on the basis of their political beliefs.

Despite what Trump and his allies would have you believe, surveillance of American citizens and residents without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the most recent suit comes in the context of decades of increasing federal surveillance. From COINTELPRO investigations of civil rights leaders to the 21st century surveillance of citizen telecommunication revealed by Edward Snowden, the American government has a long history of unconstitutional monitoring. The Trump administration has only accelerated this trend.

In the past year, the federal government has paid millions of dollars to Palantir, a controversial intelligence and military tech company. It has engaged in a surveillance campaign in Minneapolis that experts have criticized as lawless, while quietly sharing data collected by individual government agencies with other agencies, to be used for different purposes, without individual consent. In 2026, Big Brother isn’t only watching — he’s also taking notes.

The Trump administration’s precedent of abusing secondary data indicates that Harvard students are in real danger. In the past year, the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to use agency data collected for legitimate purposes for apparently unethical surveillance. Federal officials shared data collected by Medicaid with immigration enforcement personnel, while the Department of Agriculture ordered states to share the Social Security numbers and addresses of millions of people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

In keeping with this pattern, the DOJ could use data supposedly collected to investigate SFFA compliance to intimidate international students and stifle dissent. In classic authoritarian fashion, the DOJ would have a solid foundation to compile a list of its “enemies.”

This might seem like paranoia. SFFA is a Supreme Court decision, and the DOJ is obliged to ensure its faithful execution. Though I view it as unlikely, it is possible that, right now, Bondi is truly seeking to enforce SFFA. But once the Trump administration has access to student-level data, the University relinquishes its ability to decide what that information is used for. In the context of a much larger project of internal surveillance, it would be gambling with our democracy. That is a bet we can’t afford to take.

If Pam Bondi truly wants to read my personal statement, she can email me. Until then, Harvard must fight the latest lawsuit: for its students, for itself, and for the country.

Caroline R. Kramer ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Have a tip for The Crimson? Share it confidentially.