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?
This is a challenging question, because in addition to some of the tax changes on the endowment, there’s also some other challenges with respect to the grant funding that Harvard receives from the federal government being reduced. The role of the Board of Overseers includes both providing strategic advice to leadership as well as overseeing the academic program, and ensuring the academic program maintains its approach to excellence.
What’s important is really understanding how to approach cost-cutting in a way that preserves the core of what makes Harvard itself an institution. And that means kind of taking a hard look at where the institution is spending money, from a standpoint of preserving potentially some of the research programs where staffing and teaching responsibilities need to be brought in line with being able to serve the students. It may require looking at admissions policies and understanding both how many students are being admitted and what kind of tuition they’re paying. It’s important to look broadly at all of the different options and levers that the University has available to it.
As an Overseer, I think my responsibility is to make sure that’s done in a way that aligns to the long-term mission of the University and ensures that the University maintains its academic excellence. And beyond that, details of exactly where I would cut, I think that would be a difficult question for me to answer without spending quite a bit more time looking at the University budget. I think that’s probably a little bit outside of the role of the Overseer anyway.
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?
I’m aware of that decision, and I’ll admit that I was surprised to see it; not good or bad, but I was aware of it. I think given the current situation with Harvard and some of the negotiations that are ongoing with the federal government, there is a real benefit to maintaining some continuity in the leadership of the University, given just where the institution is right now. I anticipate I will learn more about the details of the process for doing a more open search in the future for the next president.
I think that having the involvement of the Overseers in that, and having the involvement of alumni elected bodies in that, is an important part of the process. I’m not familiar with the role that faculty play currently in the search process, and so I can’t answer that last question.
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’m not familiar with the specific recommendation. I’m aware that when I was a student, the faculty did weigh in on some administrative issues with the University. I think that they’re critical stakeholders to the institution. So I think that there is a role for faculty to play. I can’t comment on the specific proposal.
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?
As I’ve already alluded to, this is a really challenging time for the institution, in particular with its dealings with the federal government. There’s multiple things at stake right now. I’ve already mentioned that several billion dollars of research funding are at stake, which do have a direct impact on Harvard’s operation and research and education mission, and you have seen other elite institutions take the approach of coming to an agreement with the administration.
At the same time, while we’re thinking about some of these near-term impacts that the lawsuits, and the engagement with the federal government have had, there’s something bigger at stake here, which is the importance of maintaining institutional independence, both for Harvard’s ability to maintain its own academic programs and chart its own course academically as an institution. I think also from a standpoint of democracy, as an American, I think it’s important for American democracy to have a robust, independent, higher education system. Harvard, which predates our Constitution, our country, has been kind of a foundational part of defining what American higher education is and what it looks like.
Because of that, I think the stakes are very high in what’s happening between Harvard and the current administration and the lawsuits that are ongoing. Because the stakes are high, I actually think that forcing the constitutional questions, as Harvard has been doing, is the right thing to do. To make an agreement without looking at what are the underlying issues associated with getting an institution of higher learning to comply with what are, in some cases, political motivations, I think has much broader repercussions than just on Harvard itself. And so I think to make an agreement that doesn’t examine those issues would be a mistake.
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?
Broadly, it’s important for any academic institution or any research institution, in order to have a robust research or academic program and capability, it does need to be representative of the broad community of people that will be impacted or educated by it.
At the same time, institutions do need to abide by the law. With respect to some of those closures, I don’t have strong familiarity of whether there was an assessment that there was a problem with them from prior Supreme Court rulings. Overall, though, it’s important that, at the same time Harvard needs to follow the law, Harvard also needs to maintain diversity of thought, diversity of identity, diversity of ideas across both the student body and the faculty. Figuring out the right balance to achieve that is important. It’s important that Harvard continues to also challenge some of these things as they come forward in legal settings.
As a follow up, should the College end legacy admissions and preferences for children of donors?
That one’s a really complicated question. I’m aware that legacy admits often reflect, and currently still reflect, a much more homogenous population than the general student body and also the general pool of applicants. So at a minimum, that means it would go against the motion toward having a more diverse and representative student body.
That being said, I think there’s a lot of things to balance around that. Some being wanting to create a culture of continuity around what it means to be Harvard, and wanting to have that be something that continues, potentially even multi-generationally. The other thing is that, as Harvard has had more diverse students and graduates, more recently, there is an opportunity there to build that association and identity with Harvard over time. My answer is complicated, which is to say that I wouldn’t give a blanket yes or no, but I would say that it’s worth examining a policy that’s consistent with the broader mission of the University.
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?
That’s a tough question. I think the things that have been most discussed, especially that have come up in broader communication, have very much focused on issues of antisemitism, issues of anti-Islamism, questions related to campus discourse around geopolitical issues. I’ve reviewed the task force reports that were produced last year, some special interest groups have sent me materials as well that I’ve read.
My takeaway from all of this is that there is a sizable population of the student body that doesn’t feel safe expressing their identities, expressing their viewpoints, especially in cases where maybe their viewpoints are aligned with their identity. I think that’s a problem. I think that’s a problem that’s bigger than Harvard. I’ve worked in local government, I see it in a lot of other places as well.
I think, though, it’s a particular problem for a university, because it’s part of a liberal arts education for people to be able to learn how to critically engage with topics that are uncomfortable, to learn how to disagree productively and constructively. I think that’s a cornerstone of a liberal arts education. The self-examination that the University is undertaking is a good thing. As I understand there are still policies being implemented right now, so I don’t know if I can comment on whether they’re effective or whether something else should be done, given where we are in the process.
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?
The challenges are also opportunities, let’s say. There’s two things that I see as very important that are both opportunities and also challenges. One is AI, and in particular, generative AI. It fundamentally forces us to ask real questions about, what does it mean to be an expert in something? What does it mean to engage with material? And then, how do you assess that? A lot of the mechanisms we’ve used to assess people’s mastery of a subject can be mimicked by technology quite well. There’s a challenge here to really understand how to fit this technology into an educational program.
But there’s also an opportunity for Harvard to lead both in, how does AI intersect with education and also rethink some of the disciplines — well, all of the disciplines are affected in some way by AI — rethink how to use this technology productively, ethically, and humanely. I think that’s one important role, or one important challenge, but also opportunity.
The other one is, and maybe it’s closely related, is that there’s a growing lack of societal value being placed in expertise and depth of understanding. I don’t think AI is the reason for that, but I do think that it highlights the fact that there has been this sense of, does expertise really matter? Why should we have people spend a lot of time learning and studying things? What does it even mean to really know something? There’s a lack of trust in that.
This is something I’ve seen as a challenge with universities in many different roles that I’ve had throughout my career. It’s something that frequently came up when I worked at OMB overseeing R\&D funding, that sort of sense of like, you know, why should we continue to fund universities? Are they doing useful research that’s relevant to the taxpayers that fund it? One of the things that is an opportunity for any institution of higher education, but particularly Harvard because of the role it plays in the country and in the world, is to start to bridge that and understand where is that trust not coming from.
I founded a nonprofit to get scientists and engineers more engaged in discussion with their communities. I do think that’s something that’s been lost in a lot of areas of higher education and research, is that importance of sort of circling back to who are you doing this for and why.
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 don’t know the donation policy at a level of being able to answer the question as how it affects Epstein. My understanding is that the funds have been reverted, I’m not quite sure where, but I’m not familiar enough with the donation policy to draw the thread between how those allegations are playing out and what changes should be made in the policy. I would say in general, though, I think it does matter who you take your money from. I feel pretty strongly about that.
In the absence of specifics, what do you think Harvard’s approach to donations writ large should be?
I’m aware that there’s solicitation of small donations and larger donations from bigger family funds and philanthropies and organizations, often hoping that there might be some ideological alignment. But sometimes it’s looking for someone that just wants to support a specific school or program. It’s a complex issue to have one single rule to all types of donations.
But I think a few things are important. The more you start with a strategic plan around these are the areas that we want to raise funding for, these are the priorities of the institution, the more control you have over ensuring that donations keep you on a strategic and mission-oriented guideline. That’s something that I’ve taken into account with my own nonprofit work. And again, I think it matters who you accept funding from because it does end up influencing what you do. I think that know your funder is a really important part of it.
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?
Certainly in the case of clear legal violations, that’s something that should clearly be discussed. I think where you have activities that cross ethical boundaries for the University. The bigger picture here is that when a faculty member engages in activities that are illegal, deeply unethical, and in violation of the University’s mission or core values, then it should be under consideration to revoke tenure. These are not Harvard-related questions, but as an astrophysicist, there are a couple of high-profile cases of tenured faculty at other institutions who have been credibly found to have engaged in harassing students. It can go to the rot of an institution if these things are not addressed.