Recent events at Harvard and other elite university campuses have highlighted how far some campuses have strayed from the strong cultures that created our most elite academic institutions.  The old cultures never would have allowed institutionally supported restrictions on academic freedom, free speech and open discourse.  They would not have allowed a drift away from historical core values such as merit and excellence toward equal representation based on identity, intolerance of diverse views and manufactured “truths” relating to class, privilege, power and social justice.  At Harvard, these developments, which have been underway for several decades, reached a boiling point with the appointment of Claudine Gay, Harvard’s chief advocate for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, as Harvard’s president and the disruptions on campus following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7 of last year. 

​

The focus prompted by these events caused many loyal alumni and donors to take a closer look at what has been going-on at Harvard.  That closer look has left many questioning Harvard’s leadership and has led to a loss of confidence in Harvard’s future direction under that leadership.  The focus for some has been the culture on campus and how to fix it. We applaud the efforts of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard to restore academic freedom and open dialogue on campus. For others, the focus has been on how the Harvard Corporation Fellows could have selected a president who within six short months would be forced to step down for her performance on the job and past plagiarism and the how the Fellows could have let the mission of the institution drift so far away from academics and toward political agendas such as social justice.

​

One revelation from the increased focus is that the Corporation is politically and experientially unbalanced and needs re-centering.  From publicly available information including voter registrations, political donations, government service and public statements, it appears that at least 11, and probably all twelve, of the Fellows are Democrats and likely align with “urban liberal” political views.  This lack of diversity in the political views of a board can result in “groupthink” which can lead to poor decision-making.  This is particularly true in the case of Harvard which lacks any detailed articulation of its mission. Its Charter was last revised in 1650.  Also, an “urban liberal” like-mindedness among Fellows would be out of synch with, and prompt concern among, many of Harvard’s most generous donors. 

 

A more politically and experientially diverse group of Fellows probably would have had a more skeptical view of selecting Claudine Gay as Harvard's president and would have pulled the alarm some time ago on the erosion of academic freedom and the emergence of an intolerant political orthodoxy on campus.  Fair or not, donors are making these connections and blame the Fellows’ decision-making and inaction for the current crisis.

​

Harvard Alumni for Better Governance was formed for those who believe Harvard’s governance is out of step with its peer institutions and its pre-eminent position among elite universities.  These alumni and donors will need to see significant changes to Harvard’s governance and the composition of the Corporation Fellows before their confidence in and generosity toward Harvard will be restored.