Is Harvard good for society?

Do American colleges supply chef-cooked meals, platinum pens, and designer teaching? Following recent stories in the media, an uninformed person (or a foreigner like me) might believe it to be so. While I look around for a pillow in my bare Harvard dorm, let me try to add a pinch of fact to the current debate about the institutions of higher learning and their allegedly absurd amenities.

According to a recent article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine, American universities are now in the business of consumer satisfaction, “furnish[ing] their campuses with luxuries.” Supposedly, colleges now care less about students’ intellectual capabilities and potential; it is hard cash, not human capital that counts. Despite the assumption that “money corrupts” and that “things are getting worse,” the worries about higher education are misplaced. The marketplace will not eat the university for breakfast.

Of course, excessive focus on money can be unhealthy just as too much oil has adverse effects on a car’s engine. But American universities aren’t rusty. They are in a good shape and they will, almost certainly, continue to shine. The tremendous success of higher education in this country has lasted so long partly because of a mixture of charity, pride, and personal freedom, elements that must be preserved in order to maintain quality. The inseparable part of quality, however, is money.

School spirit is in the air on American campuses and, to some degree, it stays with people even after they graduate. By contrast, my European friends are patriotic about their countries but almost completely indifferent about the colleges they attended. It comes as no surprise then that alumni in the U.S. donate more money to schools, the endowments are growing, and taxpayers are happy to deduct their donations.

Yet more somber voices come on scene. Robert B. Reich, a professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley (and President Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor) recently asserted in his Los Angeles Times op-ed that universities are often “investments in the lifestyle of the rich” and argued that donors should only be able to deduct half of their contributions to not-for-profits like colleges and operas.

Reich should bring up the issue of how Americans choose to give back to their communities and support charities. Undoubtedly, one way to make a difference is to give away money wisely. Since our spending habits are shaped by the legal environment, it would be a monumental mistake to discourage giving to a selected group of not-for-profit organizations through targeted changes in the tax code.

Universities, as an example, provide a number of public goods, ranging from discoveries to open-source papers and lecture materials which citizens of any country can access if they are connected to the Internet. Even most critics of the universities concede that the social value of universities is immense; education provides essential skills for a stable—and hopefully prospering—society.

Professor Reich claims he is concerned about poverty. But it is an educated person who is statistically less likely to ever become poor or dependent on welfare. Reich editorializes against inequality (“America’s very rich are richer than ever”) but after naming the problem, he rejects a proven solution. Higher education is key to social mobility, and more donations have allowed colleges to afford financial aid initiatives. A decrease in donations received due to tax considerations would only hurt lower- and middle-class families.

Appealing to his readers by painting a simplistic picture of the not-for-profit sector, Reich elected a sound strategy. Sure, some institutions do more for the disadvantaged than others. But the conclusion that more revenue should be raised through separation of non-profits into two groups with different taxation policies is a step in the wrong direction in terms of pushing Americans to give to charity.

It is honorable to feed and cure people today (as we traditionally understand by “charity”), but it is at least as important to seek innovations that lower costs and increase the accessibility of basic necessities for survival. Why are some organizations and activities considered less worthy because they do not provide obvious, immediate proofs that they are useful? Why do we find it so difficult to abandon our love for short-term solutions and quick fixes?

Professor Reich was kind to volunteer and divide non-profits into those that are socially valuable and the rest. Alas, the fact that non-governmental organizations address issues such as climate change, access to health or government transparency—issues that every thriving society needs to treat seriously—does not seem to guide his rulings.

I am defending my own institution on this page; that alone makes me prone to accusations of self-serving bias. But it would be a mistake to assume that Harvard affiliates will defend this university simply because they fancy the crimson color. Harvard should face criticism when it is due but not when its name and the word “endowment” happen to appear in the same sentence. If you do believe universities are drowning in dollars, please, keep the checkbook in your pocket. But we like our financial aid, so don’t lobby for harmful adjustments to the tax code.

Jan Zilinsky ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is an economics concentrator in Mather House.