Supporting Maggie Williams at the IOP

When Institute of Politics Director Maggie Williams decided to take a temporary leave of absence last month to join Hillary Clinton’s transition team, some conservative alumni went up in arms. In a letter published in The Crimson and addressed to Kennedy School Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf, 15 University alumni called for Williams’ “immediate resignation,” condemning her political appointment as being a “conflict of interest” with the nonpartisan nature of the IOP.

Williams’ appointment to the Clinton campaign was never truly unexpected or unprecedented: Williams has been a consistent and long-time supporter of the Clintons, working with them since the 1992 election. Even before she was brought in as the IOP Director, she had served as Clinton’s campaign manager in the 2008 election, as her transition director in 1992, and as the Chief of Staff to the First Lady.

We reject the letter’s argument that the leadership of the IOP must not be involved in partisan politics. Maggie Williams has every right to actively support any political cause, and it is especially in her role as IOP Director that she is entitled to—and actively encouraged to—engage in political expression. The IOP's commitment to nonpartisanship does not necessitate the political noninvolvement of its director, and conversely its director’s political beliefs do not taint the IOP’s neutrality.

This principle is borne out by multiple precedents; the IOP has always been led by figures with significant partisan political experience. Williams’ predecessor, C. M. Trey Grayson ’94, was a prominent Republican and served as Kentucky’s Secretary of State, and his own predecessor, interim IOP Director John Culver ’54, was a Democratic Senator from Iowa.

More saliently, even conservatives within the IOP have rushed to Williams’ defense. Douglas R. Heye, a Fall 2015 IOP resident fellow and 25-year veteran of Republican politics, has personally attested to Williams’ “unyielding dedication to ensuring conservative voices are represented at the IOP." This insider testimony makes clear that any fears of Williams’ partisanship are all but unwarranted.

If anything, the benefits of Williams’ involvement in presidential politics will redound to the IOP. Professors at Harvard take time off all the time to engage in research or serve in presidential administrations, and doing so furthers knowledge in their field. Professors return with new material and ideas, and few would disagree that these leaves of absence are important and essential for development in academia.

Similarly, Williams’ decision to join an active presidential transition team may strengthen rather than hamstring the IOP, as she will return with greater first-hand experience in the national political process, in addition to stronger connections o the political elite.