Harvard's Cuts Are Only Half the Job

Like many of us, Harvard got a big haircut this summer.

After more than a year of planning, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences finished its staff restructuring, eliminating a total of 165 positions and moving 24 percent of staff into new or changed positions. The cuts were uneven, including the removal of roughly 13 percent of in-scope positions in the Division of Arts and Humanities, compared with seven percent in Science and 23 percent in Social Science and its affiliated institute.

We believe that the cuts were broadly necessary and may yet reduce administrative bloat without weakening Harvard’s core functions. But conspicuous losses to public service, writing support, and vulnerable academic programs raise concerns about the University’s priorities.

Facing a projected $365 million deficit and an uncertain future of government funding, the FAS could not continue business as usual. We have previously maintained that trimming excess administration while protecting academic functions could be a vital step towards a more efficient Harvard. The recent restructuring appears to have followed that principle.

As with any venturesome haircut, there is an awkward phase. Remaining staff and faculty will have to plan carefully for redistributed work, and students may need to take more initiative in accessing newly consolidated services.

That said, some of the restructuring’s most visible choices have sent a troubling message. Close to half of the roles at Phillips Brooks House were affected, the Writing Center was consolidated, and Harvard committed to shuttering the Dudley Community. Whatever administrators intended, these decisions suggest a retreat from public service, writing education, and community life. At a moment when elite higher education is debating the value of their civic missions, we expect the University to more clearly demonstrate that these functions remain priorities.

If the FAS would like to show that the changes are as administrative as they claim, it has the opportunity to conduct targeted faculty hiring in vulnerable programs. Beyond facing administrative bottlenecks, these smaller departments lack the hires needed to teach, advise, and sustain their fields of study.

The Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program, for instance — which lost all three of its non-faculty staff positions in the restructuring — had only 22 concentrators in the College as of April. Much of the problem stems not from a lack of student interest, but from missing faculty and funding. Five WGS lecturer positions were slashed as part of a 25 percent reduction in non-tenure track faculty budgets last March, halving WGS’s course offerings.

That creates a vicious cycle where thinner offerings make it more difficult to retain concentrators, leading to low enrollment that makes it easier to justify further cuts. Targeted faculty hiring would interrupt that cycle and help preserve these departments.

Harvard needed a trim. Whether it looks good will depend on what Harvard allows to grow.

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.