Charting a Progressive Course

Ballasted with 370 years of precedent and tradition, Harvard is the flagship of higher education. But it plows ahead in straight lines, changing little as the years tick on and as it loses ground to more agile institutions which constantly innovate and reinvent themselves. If Harvard is to navigate the serpentine channel that lies ahead and still remain at the forefront of higher education, it must overcome its overwhelming inertia. But the course is difficult, and will require a bold, visionary, and audacious helmsman to chart.

For that role we turn to a small crew of 11 who will steer Harvard into the future—Interim President Derek C. Bok, Interim Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Jeremy R. Knowles, and the nine members of the Presidential Search Committee. Their task, above all, is to ensure that Harvard does not rest on its laurels­—it cannot if it hopes to remain at the top of the heap; this remains as true today as it was when University President Lawrence H. Summers was selected five years ago.

Bok and Knowles have the unique opportunity to reprise their past roles and in many ways are the perfect fits for their respective jobs. Each has attained enough gravitas to command the respect of the entire University community, and each has a track record of creating the type of collegial atmosphere that today’s challenges call for. Furthermore, neither has any interest in staying on beyond a year, allowing them to clear the ground for the next guard without forcing the hand of their successors.

While a year of reflection and smoothing over is badly needed, if next year is that and nothing more, it will be a lost opportunity. In particular, the undergraduate experience still lags behind that at several other colleges, and without the constant prioritization and funding of undergraduate initiatives, both academic and social, Harvard cannot profess to be first rate. One particularly important task that has fallen squarely on the shoulders of Bok and Knowles is shepherding the Harvard College Curricular Review as it advances into its most critical stages. Other bold initiatives begun by Summers—the University’s expansion into Allston, its revamping of financial aid, and making Harvard the global hub of the life sciences, to name a few—remain uncompleted, and will require care and guidance if they are to blossom into fruition. Bok and Knowles cannot afford to be complacent.

The nine members of the Presidential Search Committee have an equally daunting task—finding the rare leader who is right for Harvard both now and 25 years down the road. But before a short list is made, the committee must articulate its own vision for the University.

We hope the committee does not stray far from Summers’ bold plan. The greatest presidents, typified by Charles W. Eliot, Class of 1853, were dreamers who fought tradition and inertia to keep Harvard evolving—from its roots as a small school for training clergymen into the preeminent institution of today. At each juncture, these great leaders sought to reinvent Harvard so that it could meet the challenges of education, research, scholarship, and public service in their respective eras.

In today’s rapidly changing world, such progressive vision is more important than ever. Harvard’s president needs to ask the hard questions and push for answers, even if they are difficult or unconventional. He or she must centralize authority and fight Harvard’s tendency to factionalize into fiefdoms. What the president cannot—and must not—be is a merely charismatic and charming fundraiser who leaves each tub on its own bottom and lets each faculty do as it pleases. Harvard deserves more from its leader.

We also hope that the committee seeks out a president who will understand the central role that undergraduates play on campus and prioritize the College accordingly. We had hoped that the search committee would include students and faculty to inject this urgency into the deliberative process. Students and faculty have, disappointingly, been relegated to advisory committees with limited roles, but we hope the committee does not neglect their input.

What Harvard needs is a leader who can inspire each of the University’s factions to aspire to the same common goals and vision. In a world in which every professor, administrator, and student is his or her own king, leadership cannot be top-down but must instead stem from example and inspiration. That will require a less brusque and opaque management style than Summers brought to Mass. Hall. But it does not mean that Harvard’s next leader should stay away from rocking the ship or changing course.

We have welcomed the rate of change of the last five years, change which was long overdue, which faced and tackled the dilemmas of the 21st century, and which improved the lives of undergraduates considerably. We hope that Bok, Knowles, and the nine members of the presidential search committee also see the importance of change—and do everything in their power to maintain it.