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?
Not reactively. It should be done strategically. I think that there’s a three-prong attack on the finances, or pressure on the finances. I would say attack one is the endowment tax, which, as you said, went up considerably. And then you have the freeze on the federal funding. And then you have a historical structural issue where expenses were exceeding incomes. So you have to restructure the entire financial planning. I hope that the administrative part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences is the one that gets more of the pain and less the academic part, but it’s a real challenge. I mean, donations have been up, but donations are not going to fix the structural problem. So I think the board should see what the plan is to restructure medium, long term.
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 think that these are times which are unique. I don’t think ever in the history of the University it has been under the scrutiny it’s under now. So I think changing or modifying the way governance is occurring during a time of tremendous pressure, I think is a mistake. I think it’s correct to follow the way things have been done, and I don’t think these are things you should try to change during immense pressure.
As a follow up, by that you mean that we should have gone through a presidential search process?
No, I think, I think it was done right precisely because you need continuity during a time of pressure. And I think favoring continuity in such a difficult and unique time, I think it benefits the institution.
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 definitely think faculty should be involved in governance. If I’m not mistaken, I think Yale has a faculty senate. I think it could help. It certainly helps in the process of decision making and giving more legitimacy to the decisions because faculty is a very important part of the University, and the bigger role they play, I think, adds legitimacy to the decisions that are being taken.
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?
I do not know what the negotiations are. So I would not comment on the negotiations, per se. I do think there are, or there should be, red lines, and those red lines are institutional autonomy and no ideological concessions. That said, I really am not part of any negotiation, so I couldn’t really comment on a negotiation, 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?
Well, first of all, overseers don’t handle admissions policy. But I do think SFFA, which I don’t agree with fundamentally, I think it’s the law, and I think we have to abide by the law. That said, I think there are areas where we could legally introduce race as context. What SFFA prohibits is to use race as a category, but not race as context. And I think if interviewing is done correctly, it could be used as a method to bring out the context of race for the admissions process, not as a category again, but as context.
As a follow up, should the College end legacy admissions and preferences for children of donors?
Again, I think it should be phased out. I think it entrenches historical discrimination, and I think there should be a pathway to eliminating legacy and donor ambitions.
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?
I think free speech is a bedrock of any democratic society. I think it should be treated as that. While Harvard is not subject to the First Amendment because it’s not a government or it’s not a public university, I think Harvard has adopted speech rules that are consistent with the First Amendment and that are consistent with also protecting students and allowing students to feel safe within their university. And I think you cannot have the free flow of ideas without free speech. But I think that if we apply free speech, we should apply it in its full doctrinal theory, which also limits speech where people feel threatened or they cannot themselves express their thoughts.
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?
Harvard should always strive for excellence, and excellence is something you’re never going to achieve. So I would be hard pressed not to find an area where I think we can always do more and we can always do better. I am very worried about research in the graduate programs, precisely because of the budget cuts. I think it could theoretically affect an entire generation. People that aren’t able to get their Ph.D.s now won’t come back to get them in Harvard. They will get them somewhere else. Research that should have been done at Harvard is no longer going to be done at Harvard. It’s going to be done somewhere else. And I would like to see a plan, to see how we are going to &emdash; not regain, because we can’t regain it &emdash; but get back on track and create the conditions for Harvard to continue to be one of the top research institutions of the world.
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 think it at best shows that there has to be greater scrutiny in who is donating and where the money is coming from. Again, I don’t think one example is going to make a case for an overhaul of the situation, but I think it certainly begs the question as to whether we are properly screening who should be donating or not.
What kind of principles do you think would animate the decision to reject certain donors?
Well, I think sex offender would be one. But joking aside, I think it should be the best practices of any institution that receives donations. I wouldn’t want to invent the wheel or reinvent the wheel. I think there are best practices, and I think we should adopt the best practices that are available.
In a similar vein, we’ve heard calls for consequences for association with Epstein, including revocation of tenure. When, if ever, should tenure &emdash; or for that matter, University professorship &emdash; be revoked?
I think again, I wouldn’t want to get into academic policy, because I think that’s outside my scope. But again, I think we should arrive at standards that are considered best practice in the field, and follow those standards.