This interview was edited for length and clarity.
While the Harvard Corporation exercises fiduciary responsibility for the University, the Board of Overseers plays an oversight role. Last summer, the tax on Harvard’s endowment income was raised from 1.4 percent to 8 percent, and the FAS is staring down a $365 million structural deficit. In the face of financial instability, how should Harvard approach cost cutting?
As you know, the financial aspects of Harvard are managed directly from the Corporation and not really from the Board of Overseers. But having said that, in my opinion, what Harvard is dealing with right now, with a direct impact on staff, faculty, and ultimately on University per se, is an issue correlated also with the current situation with the administration. So I do think that while, on one hand, independence and the autonomy of the University cannot be compromised, it cannot be traded off with anything, including, unfortunately right now, degrees of funds.
On the other hand, I do believe that there are and there will be, at least, I hope there will be more alumni and more donors, so more funds who will appreciate the independence and the autonomy that Harvard is trying to protect and defend. And that’s why I do believe the diversification of the funding source is very important, or it’s something that Harvard should pursue. Again, I’m absolutely sure that the fellows know exactly what is the problem, and then, I guess, don’t know how to deal with that. But definitely, this is something that I would really focus on.
In December, President Garber’s term was extended indefinitely in a bilateral decision by the governing boards. What are your thoughts on the presidential search process and the decision to bypass it? Should faculty or other stakeholders have more of a say?
As you can imagine, I was not really involved with the process and how they went through the confirmation of Garber, or in general, the appointment of the president of Harvard University. I do think, and this is really more a statement of principle, that transparency should be crucial in any institution, especially institutions like Harvard. So any process, any procedure for appointments in the specific case that you are referring to, or any other process of procedure with respect to rules and enforcement of the rules should be characterized by transparency, and transparency means real information and knowing how that really works.
I do think that faculty members should be involved, because they are a very important body of the University, and students should really know, again, in a much more transparent way. I mean, at the end of the day, the University is you guys, the students. So I think you should know at least the rules with full transparency. And again, transparency is an issue for all institutions.
In October, a planning body proposed a set of bylaws for a University-wide faculty senate to play a deliberative and advisory role with respect to the governing boards. The proposed senate would be a relatively weak body compared to many other elite institutions. What do you make of the recommendation, and of faculty input to governance more broadly?
Note: Interviews were conducted before the announcement of negotiations between the faculty senate planning body and representatives of top University administrators.
I do think faculty should be involved. They should be part of it. I do think that if having a faculty body, if that really can help to give more voice to the faculty, that could really make sense to have a faculty body in place.
Over the past year, Harvard has faced escalating political pressure from the Trump administration. Do you think a deal with the administration, perhaps including a cash settlement, is a practical solution?
Well, I do think that Harvard, as any other university, should obviously have a constructive dialogue with any administration, including the Trump administration. Having said that, there is no way, in my opinion, that Harvard can trade the independence, the autonomy for any kind of gains. The process of admission, teaching, education cannot be compromised. There cannot be any kind of compromise of the independence and the autonomy, with respect to not only the Trump administration, but with respect to any kind of external constituencies, which means any kind of pressure coming from outside.
Harvard — universities in general — have to be the engine of education. They have to be the protector in some way, so that the education that they give to the students is not in some way influenced, conditioned, or altered in any way from external constituencies for reasons that are not necessarily connected to the education per se.
Last semester, Harvard instructed alumni interviewers to not mention applicant race, ethnicity, or national origin in written evaluations, and it was revealed that the Undergraduate Minority Recruitment Program had quietly ended. This followed the renaming of the University’s Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging and the closure of offices at the College for minority students, LGBTQ students, and women. Finally, the Department of Justice sued Harvard last month, one of the latest offensives following the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision. What do you make of the recent changes, and of Harvard’s approach to diversity more broadly?
Obviously, the admission process, in the decision not to make a reference to race, that comes from the decision from the Supreme Court. Now, that decision does not really exclude to make a reference to the race and to the origin and the ethnicity, to the extent, of course, that is a part of the characterization of your personality, your background, or your personal experience. So I do think that that decision will not limit in any way diversity as a pillar for our University. The perimeter of diversity, in my opinion, just became actually broader and larger. It’s not only anymore considering the race per se, but just the race as an element for determining your background.
But diversity is also socioeconomic status. Diversity is a first generation people, so definitely, it’s possible to target specifically, I mean, the schools where the students really come from. It’s also your geographic origin. So the concept of diversity is broader, and it’s fundamental that diversity will continue to be a pillar of the University, and that heuristic approach will continue to be used in the admission process. Otherwise, obviously, Harvard will lose the trajectory that has always had in the past. It definitely will lose the trust that all people have, especially abroad, in University. And I don’t think that’s something that Harvard, and at least I mean all the other members of the Board would like to see.
As a follow up, do you believe that the College should end legacy admissions and preferences for children of donors?
I will respond very direct to your questions, but I want to explain why I will give you that answer. I come from a very marginalized area in Sicily. My parents did not go to school at all, not a single day. At some point I was assistant professor of my law school in Sicily. There were 23 assistant professors, only three were not professors’ children. So my sentiment for all my life has been basically, I’m underprivileged.
So my answer is, no donors, no legacy should influence the admission process. Now, donations are obviously important, but donations cannot be an instrument for influencing admission. On this I’m very strong, very firm, because it’s also my personal background, where I come from, and legacy is a similar concept in some way. Harvard should really be an open door for everyone who deserves to be there, not because of the money, the donation that come from the father or the family or friends, not because the father of the mother or the relatives went to Harvard University, but because he deserves it and because his presence would guarantee diversity inside the student body.
The Intellectual Vitality Initiative was introduced in 2024 to foster free exchange of ideas and combat self-censorship. What do you make of the state of campus speech, and how can Harvard best promote open discourse?
Freedom of speech is one of the fundamental parts of academic freedom and academic excellence. There is no academic excellence if there is no academic freedom; there is no academic freedom if there is no freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech means to be able to express your opinion, even if controversial, even if it can cause some feeling of uncomfortable to other people in the same room, to the extent, obviously, that the way you express your opinion is respectful. It does not cause any kind of harassment, violence, intimidation, fear. This is fundamentally important for inclusion. There is no viewpoint diversity if there is no inclusion, and you guarantee that in the moment that not only you protect the viewpoint diversity, but you let everyone be heard and be able to express their opinion, and to be listened to in a respectful way.
I do think that Harvard has done something in that direction, especially with the Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group. I think there is definitely much more to be done. But I do think that teaching to agree in disagreeing is very important, especially in the past few years, where there have been a lot of tensions in the campus climate.
One of the primary roles of the Board of Overseers is to periodically assess Harvard’s schools and departments. What do you see as the key challenges and opportunities for growth in Harvard’s current academic environment?
So I do think that, again, Harvard should guarantee full independence in terms of growing and the academic field. I can refer to one specific example about academic growth, that is the ethnic studies. I do think that one of the next steps that Harvard should really consider is to establish an ethnic studies department, simply because right now, as you know better than me, right now the ethnic studies, they have different homes. There is no concentration, there is no department. So there is no possibility to have faculty or to have a methodological rigor, but I do think that will be an important next step in terms of academic growth.
In recent months, the University has had to reckon with its ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey E. Epstein, who donated over $9 million to the University, which helped fund one of its departments. With that in mind, what are your thoughts on Harvard’s current donation policy?
Well, I do think everything that is correlated with the Epstein files or anything that’s correlated to a crime of any kind should be strongly condemned from not only Harvard, but from everyone. So the donation, per se, it’s really important to understand who really gave this donation. What is the actual correlation with Epstein files. And again, the donation is something that the Corporation deals with. But I do think that anything that’s correlated to the files should be condemned. I mean, this is something that requires also to understand what exactly happened, who donated the money, and the kind of correlation there was between the donors and the actual crime violation.
In a similar vein, we’ve heard calls for consequences for association with Epstein, including revocation of tenure. When, if ever, should tenure — or for that matter, University professorship — be revoked?
If it is proven that there is a correlation between tenured professors, staff, or anyone else, I think the decision that has to be taken is very straight. It’s very straight, very simple. It should be revoked. Obviously, we know that has to be in some way proven, that there is an actual correlation, but if that is the case, an enforcement has to be put in place.
What do you mean by correlation?
Well, if, for instance, a professor — just because I think you were referring to that — is identified in the files and is associated with some criminal actions that have been done in connection with Epstein, that is in my opinion a case.