The Harvard complex

Alexis de Tocqueville, the renowned author of Democracy in America, embarked on a mission from France to study American prisons in 1831 and 1832 and found himself in the company of numerous Harvard men.

Two decades later, Harvard University bestowed upon him an honorary degree, Doctor of Laws. In his response to Jared Sparks, the then-president of Harvard University, Tocqueville expressed his concerns about America: “[America] has nothing more to fear except herself, from the abuse of democracy, from the spirit of adventure and conquest, from the sentiment and exaggerated pride of her forces, and the impetuosity of youth.” Harvard University, a bastion of democracy, has contributed significantly to realising these fears, as Tocqueville describes, in developing the principles on which American democracy was founded with a deeply entrenched seed of self-betrayal.

Harvard, a prominent university that evolved from its origins as a training ground for clergy in the 17th century, is one of the most remarkable academic transformations in history. This evolution, culminating in its status as one of the most prestigious universities in the world, highlights its noble roles as a thought leader, moral authority, and cultural influence over centuries, a journey that commands awe and respect.

Fast forward to 2025, Harvard University has been mired in several allegations, including scientific fraud, misconduct, and plagiarism, which have raised serious questions about the university’s ethical standards and academic integrity.

None of these allegations are as serious as its insidious and dubious collaborations with China over decades through academic partnerships and training of Chinese cadres and officials. As a result, Harvard has built a reputation as a Chinese communist “party school.”

How has Harvard been transformed into an echo chamber for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)?

Henry Kissinger, one of the most renowned Harvard alumni and a key architect of U.S. foreign policy during and after the Cold War, was at the forefront, playing a pivotal role in this transformation.

On 9 July 1971, Kissinger secretly travelled to China to meet with Premier Zhou Enlai, ushering in a new era during the most perilous years of the Cold War as the U.S. wooed China against its archenemy, the Soviet Union. As part of these backdoor negotiations, he reportedly acknowledged Taiwan as part of China and promised to withdraw two-thirds of U.S. military forces from the island. As a result, on 25 October 1971, the United Nations officially recognised the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the sole legitimate government of China, stripping Taiwan of its seat and reducing it to a non-sovereign political entity, leaving its future ambiguous and precarious.

In 1979, China was invited to participate in the Davos World Economic Forum for the first time under the leadership of Klaus Schwab, another distinguished alumnus of Harvard. Over the years, Schwab oversaw a covert yet fruitful collaboration with China, leading him to praise China as a global role model in 2022. However, this praise stands in stark contrast to the reality of China in that same year, a period marked by its perpetration of the Uyghur genocide and the establishment of digital totalitarianism through its powerful social credit system.

That same year, on 31 January 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and PRC leader Deng Xiaoping signed the U.S.-China Science and Technology Agreement (STA) to foster collaboration in science and technology between the two nations. This initiative was immediately followed by the World Bank, which provided vital financing to China’s rapidly expanding manufacturing industry on 16 April 1980, facilitating the country’s ascent to become a global superpower. Consequently, China has become a seriously competitive nation, posing an existential threat to the West in general and to the U.S. in particular, in military technologies, cyber advantages, manufacturing industries, financial prowess, cultural image, espionage activities, greater control of rare earth materials, as well as the progression of quantum computing and AI.

In all these coordinated efforts, in which Kissinger played a pivotal role, Harvard has been a key player. For example, Harvard’s Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs collaborated with members of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on quantum computing and simulated cyber warfare exercises. This collaboration provided the CCP with vital insight into U.S. system vulnerabilities to digital attacks.

While seemingly academic in nature, this collaboration is a serious threat to American national security infrastructure in the context of escalating U.S.-China relations. Harvard, a beacon of Western thought, intellectualism, democracy and leadership training, has betrayed its academic principles by facilitating the CCP’s infiltration of the U.S., not only academically but also ideologically. This betrayal is a grave disappointment, as it provides the CCP access to globally renowned expertise and influences the academic direction to increase support for communism under the guise of left-wing ideology.

The political landscape among professors in U.S. universities is notably leaning towards the left, with around 60% of the faculties identified as “liberal” or “far left”. While not all these faculties are intentionally communists or communist sympathisers, critical thought and conservatism are significantly diminished in U.S. universities. It has created a fertile ground for the university faculty to align with socialism, communism, and anarchism, as united by their common negative attitudes towards capitalism, neoliberalism, and conservatism.

This transition, which involves the systematic inculcation of a particular set of beliefs or ideas, often at the expense of critical thinking and academic freedom, has led to a stifling of diverse perspectives and a homogenisation of thought at Harvard. This homogenisation, which can be described in Chinese communist terminology as “the unity of thoughts”, suppresses dissent and promotes a singular, party-approved narrative. In the context of Harvard, this creates a monolithic intellectual environment that contradicts the principles of intellectual diversity, academic freedom, and open debate.

Elite educational institutions in the United States, notably Harvard, have gradually abandoned their traditional commitment to fostering new and challenging ideas and visions for the future; instead, they serve as platforms for dictators and their ideologies. Rather than prioritising intellectual excellence, offering moral leadership, and pursuing knowledge through critical thought, they promote ideological indoctrination.

Consider a university as society’s brain and an elite university as its central part. This brain is now compromised and poses a clear and present danger to U.S. society, as the proverb says: “A fish rots from the head down.”

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher, outlined the foundation for the takeover of capitalism through economic means and by dominating cultural institutions, including schools, universities, churches, and the media. Gramsci argued that establishing socialism and overthrowing capitalism requires infiltration and transformation of these institutions from within, gradually changing and ultimately taking control of the cultural and ideological foundation of society.

Now, recall Tocqueville’s prophetic warnings for America, particularly in the context of Harvard. The crux of this warning is that democracy can be its enemy from within, and it can be rotten at its high echelons, from the peaks of political authority, intellectual elitism, and moral standards.

The damage inflicted by Harvard and numerous other elite institutions in the United States is not short-term but generational. It has facilitated the infiltration of hostile and anti-democratic ideologies and indoctrinating students, the future leaders of this nation, to gradually transform society to create, as Gramsci envisioned, forces of “a counter-hegemony that would challenge and eventually replace the existing capitalist hegemony.”

At its core, the entire process is so incremental and insidious that it is almost impossible to discern where all these changes, deviations, and betrayals lead unless one sees the big picture through persistent patterns. As Harvard continues to exhibit a consistent pattern of strengthening enemies of democracy, it increasingly becomes a nexus of anti-democratic forces risking the future of American democracy. America must be afraid of itself, of its once trusted institutions grooming their impressionable and impetuous youth to become useful tools for “counter-hegemony.”