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?
I think, as in any exercise like this, Harvard has to be both comprehensive and thoughtful about how it faces cost cutting. I’ve done these exercises myself, and I think what is important is you preserve what is uniquely core to Harvard and so, what we talk about is you don’t want to cut the muscle, but if there’s fat that can be trimmed, that’s where we have to look. So I think in conjunction with cost cutting, it’s not just about cost cutting, it’s about how we maybe do things differently, and how we find efficiencies there. And that’s something I’ve spent a lot of time in my career 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?
Well, I have to say, I think we don’t have a lot of transparency into how the presidential search process works, so it’s a bit hard to comment further on that, but I will say we are in this very unique moment in dealing with the government, and it is not unusual for organizations to keep someone in the role who has has been playing a primary part in that process.
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 haven’t seen the tenets of that, so I’d have to see that. I think there’s definitely a role for faculty input, as there is a role for student input, as there is a role for administration input and alumni input. So I think we have to think about that broadly and see what really makes the most sense and what’s most impactful for the University.
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, what I’ve said, and it’s on the Crimson Courage page, is, I’m very skeptical that, given what’s happened at Brown and Columbia, you can sign on the dotted line and still have government interference. And I am opposed to a fine. I think we have to figure out how to solve this in a nonpartisan way and ensure the continuation of our academic freedom and non government interference.
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?
Well, I would just say, personally, I have spent my whole career promoting women and minorities in the workforce and ensuring access, opportunity, and continuation of promotions. That is very near and dear to my heart. And I have also been very active in my own community in Fairfield County, where I chair the Schools and Scholarship Committee. I will say that the challenge I think we face is, while Dr. Charleston has articulated a broader view and broader mission for her office, I think there’s been a disconnect with what’s happening on the ground and what that broader view is. And I think we have to bring that together and make sure that students feel the impact of what they’re trying to do there.
As a follow up, do you believe the College should end legacy admissions and preferences for children of donors?
Given my role as chair of Schools and Scholarship Committee for Fairfield County, I am not in a position to comment on admissions policies. It is the same answer I’ve given other organizations.
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?
So let me begin by saying I think a campus environment and culture and classroom setting where we have open speech and respectful dialogue is paramount. It is the core of what who we are and what a university should be, which is a forum for a diverse set of ideas and debate. I think the University is making strides to improve that with specific training. I think we just have to keep working at this and get to the next level here. It’s been very troubling to hear that people don’t feel — and this is across, this is the College, the Business School — that people don’t feel like they can have open discussions, even professors saying that. So we have to keep figuring out ways to make our classroom and our overall culture, welcoming and fostering of different viewpoints and conversations.
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?
That’s a great question. I think we have to restore this culture and norms of viewpoint diversity. I think this is where Harvard excels, is our absolute insistence on academic excellence and academic broadness. So that, to me, is non-negotiable. I think there are also ways that the schools throughout the University can work better together, learn from each other, and foster closer ties, and that’s something I would be very keen on working on as well.
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?
I think we have to be very thoughtful and clear about how we source our donations and what the implications are and associations are. We stand for many things, and we have to be very clear about from whom and what institutions we will take money.
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 faculty violates the norms or policies of our University, I would think that’s sufficient grounds.