Why Is Garber Talking Behind Harvard’s Back?

No one likes to hear rumors about themselves through the grapevine. This is no less true of Harvard students and faculty.

Last week, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 decried what he perceives as widespread ignorance among students who express strong views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. In December, he suggested that faculty should withhold from sharing their personal perspectives in class.

The arguments in themselves are misguided. I wrote in January criticizing the demand for “objective” education as pedagogically and epistemically unsound. There is also a clear contradiction between claiming students’ ignorance on an issue is “disturbing” while the University has slashed academic programming and cancelled numerous events on precisely that topic.

Also notable with regards to Garber’s remarks is their audience: neither were addressed to Harvard affiliates. In building the culture of free flowing civil disagreement that Garber aspires for, it is unproductive to use charged language to attack ambiguous groups of students and faculty to non-Harvard affiliates, much more so without engaging in discussions with those implicated.

If President Garber wishes to voice his concerns with campus life, he ought to address those complaints to those who actually live and work on that campus.

The comments on faculty were made on a podcast with the Shalom Hartman Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank. His recent remarks were delivered at a talk in Manhattan at the 92nd Street Y, self-described as “New York’s global center for culture, connection and enrichment.”

These latest comments thus mark the second time in recent months that the president has vented his frustrations with the University’s culture of academic exchange out in the public square, rather than in dialogue with members of the community.

When addressing the University, Garber seems to withhold such sharp criticism. Mere weeks ago at Harvard’s rebranded diversity forum, he spoke more optimistically about the power and necessity of disagreement on campus. In a meeting with faculty this month, he defended Harvard’s record on antisemitism and suggested that the public is beginning to come around in its perception of Harvard.

By and large, Garber saves his barbs for the road.

Harvard in recent years has faced a barrage of media criticisms that make sweeping claims about campus life without a fair or adequately nuanced picture — we should expect our president wouldn’t fan the flames. Yes, at points, Garber still defended Harvard in his remarks, yet both the form and substance of his condemnations expose the University to further media sensationalization (just see Fox News articles about both statements). His comments also fail to allow the public to hear the other side of the story.

It is irresponsible for the face of the University to so negatively characterize affiliates without the ability for retort or disagreement. Garber’s claims are debatable, and thus ought to be debated, especially in a public eye primed to pounce on “woke” students and faculty.

Without a proper challenge, those unfamiliar with Harvard may be inclined to take the president’s singular perspective as fact.

Beyond only public-facing concerns, this is also a matter of communicative and effective leadership at home. For the president’s public remarks on campus to be polished and restrained while his remarks out in the world are comparatively candid and uninhibited undermines trust in the authenticity of communication.

Retrospectively, Garber’s buttoned-up communication with affiliates reads more as a promotion of the party line than a genuine, nuanced reflection of belief. In blunt terms, it can seem as if the mayor is drunk in the next town over. Free-speaking and transparent leadership are certainly welcome, but these values ought to be reflected on campus instead.

Effective administrative communication, while perhaps not common, is present elsewhere at Harvard. This year, amidst controversial decisions such as proposed changes to grading policy, Harvard College Dean David J. Deming and Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh have communicated their underlying rationale and made themselves available for discussion through town halls and open forums. Crucially, their qualms with the current state of Harvard are addressed inward, not outwards.

Obviously, Deming and Claybaugh’s jobs require them to interface with students significantly more than Garber’s does. I am not calling for President Garber to be personally required to answer every concern students and faculty may have. But if he has time to voice concerns about campus life to the public, he has time to voice them to Harvard. If they are to be voiced, it should be in genuine dialogue with the subjects of his critique.

I will request directly of our president: perhaps host a town hall in Sanders regarding your concerns about campus culture specifically marketed for students, or set aside some time for undergraduate office hours. If you are feeling particularly adventurous, you could even get a dining hall lunch with me, a Crimson armchair administrator.

Harvard’s top job endows its holder with a powerful pulpit — it should not be used to air grievances without the possibility of a challenge.

Adam N. Chiocco ’27, an Associate Editorial Editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Pforzheimer House.