[uhhhd]

Because the reputational damage to Harvard would probably exceed the minimal cost of litigating this (given its endowment) if they thought they would win. It's not evidence in legal sense, but it's a strong suggestion of culpability. Harvard isn't some kid that was arrested on false charges and settles because they're facing jail time. This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.

[Braxton1980]

>This is a massive institution with a 50B purse. Litigating this is peanuts for them.

Companies, large ones, settle all the time even if not at fault to avoid a lengthy trial which damages their reputation. It can have nothing to do with culpability.

3% of civil cases reach a verdict.

https://arizonabusinesslawyeraz.com/when-to-litigate-and-whe...

Settlements are also a known fixed cost controlled by the business instead of a jury. Considering how Republicans are attacking Harvard I would say the desire to get this out the public spotlight as fast as possible is important