Keep the Gifts, Lose the Grip

Not all budget cuts are created equal, and Harvard’s overhaul of its alumni office shows why.

Harvard’s Alumni Affairs and Development office, the arm of the University responsible for managing fundraising and donor relations, has undergone major restructuring amidst new leadership and budgetary pressure. That process has included 55 layoffs.

Those losses are regrettable, but if Harvard is going to make cuts, this is at least a defensible way to go about it.

The University has a strong interest in shielding research and teaching from austerity wherever possible. That does not mean every staff role is expendable, but that efforts to reduce spending should come through consolidation and reorganization rather than blunt retrenchment — otherwise the value these administrators provide is simply lost. What makes the AA&D case more promising is that it involves an actual rethinking of the office’s structure.

A reshaped office, beyond simply fundraising efficiently, should renew the boundaries around the role donors play in University life. Recent reporting that Jeffrey Epstein maintained close ties with various prolific Harvard donors — including Gerald L. Chan and Leslie H. Wexner, who donated at least $350 million and over $42 million, respectively — should prompt the University to reinforce the transparency of its donation policy.

As Harvard’s Epstein-era donor entanglements come further into view, the University would do well to consider whether its current fundraising apparatus is truly insulated from undue influence. The information that prompted Harvard’s earlier rewriting of its donor rules turned out not to tell the whole story; it’s hardly implausible, then, that Harvard’s Gift Policy Guide needs revision as well.

Certain benefits from donation — such as directing money to a certain House or receiving naming rights for a building — can reasonably attract higher-dollar gifts. The problem begins when the benefits become leverage over campus priorities, a line Harvard has too often left blurry.

In trying to decide when incentives transform into influence, Harvard should ask whether its current donor policies are robust enough to prevent the kind of entanglements now under scrutiny — entanglements which flew under the radar for years.

We hold that when a gift produces substantial social good, it may still be worth accepting in spite of its morally imperfect source. The University cannot afford to impose purity tests on every last benefactor. That reality means clear rules are all the more necessary: Policy should determine whether a donation advances the University’s mission without purchasing influence over University affairs in return.

It is easy to take a check without strings attached. And sure, outside influence itself isn’t always corrosive either. Still, Harvard owes its community a clearer account of what influence it will welcome, tolerate, or forbid.

In light of the investigation, the AA&D’s new leadership must confront difficult questions, including what should be done if a donor proves, after the fact, to be at odds with Harvard’s values.

Harvard’s mission must not be for sale, no matter how pretty a penny.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.