Maintaining the mission during a year of challenges

As grades were being finalized and the Yard was converted into a stage for Commencement, President Alan Garber conversed with the Gazette to contemplate the difficulties of a tumultuous year and the promise of graduation day.

This interview has been refined for clarity and brevity.

---

Students are gearing up to graduate in what is typically one of the most festive and hopeful weeks of the year. You obtained an economics degree from Harvard College in 1976. Do you recall your mindset that day — whether you felt a sense of direction?

At the time, I might have declared that I did. I had already resolved to pursue both a Ph.D. in economics and an M.D. I was undoubtedly thrilled about delving deeper into economics and becoming a physician. However, I had only a hazy notion of what awaited me after I completed my formal education.

What I did possess was a belief that I would be well-prepared to tackle significant health policy matters, with a curriculum that was unique at that time. Most importantly, I felt gratitude towards my fellow students, from whom I gained immense knowledge, the faculty who worked with me, guided me, and inspired me, and towards the institution as a whole for allowing me to be part of a remarkable community.

Merging economics and medicine likely would have never crossed my mind had I attended college elsewhere. My trajectory was likely determined when I enrolled in Ec10, a course that almost every Harvard undergraduate took then — around three-quarters of students. If not for that, I might have pursued a different kind of medical career.

Harvard and higher education have found themselves in a highly politicized context, with the federal government reducing research funding and initiating investigations into institutions. What would you say to members of the community who are anxious about the University’s future?

We should all be worried that colleges and universities are increasingly under scrutiny. However, we must not disregard the criticisms, even when they stem from misrepresentations or inaccuracies — we need to seek out the fundamental concerns that may be embedded within them. For instance, many within our community are alarmed that students have become more hesitant to express themselves candidly about controversial or uncomfortable subjects, particularly if they believe their views may not be popular. That’s a challenge we need to address, and over the past year and a half we’ve undertaken a significant amount to tackle this issue. Numerous efforts are highlighted in the report of the working group on open inquiry and constructive dialogue.

Nevertheless, we maintain that the government overreach and severe assaults on scientific and medical research are unjustified and illegal, leading us to initiate legal measures to protect the institution.

Concerns also exist regarding the expenses associated with higher education and the value it provides to students. In fact, the actual costs of attending Harvard College are substantially lower than the general perception. We extend generous financial assistance, making it more affordable for most Americans to attend Harvard compared to a state institution. The true cost of attendance for the average student receiving financial aid — over half of all undergraduates — is approximately $13,000. Furthermore, starting with this year’s incoming class, Harvard will waive tuition for children from families earning less than $200,000 annually.

We need to ensure that the public better understands not only the affordability of our education but also the benefits we offer to our students and the broader community. As a research university, we continuously strive to push the limits of knowledge. This pursuit yields significant and tangible advantages for our nation, often seen in contributing to economic development and improved health. Looking forward, I am confident that the worth of research universities will remain broadly acknowledged and that we will thrive in the long term, regardless of the challenges we currently face.

Last week, the University achieved a temporary restraining order preventing the federal government from rescinding F and J visas from Harvard students starting in the upcoming academic year. Could you elaborate on the University’s prompt response and what lies ahead?

We had to act swiftly because the repercussions of visa revocation for our international students were severe. These students are realizing their aspirations at Harvard. Their contributions to our community are profound and far-reaching; they bring their expertise, insights, as well as unique perspectives and experiences, enriching the classroom, residences, and all student gatherings. We are doing everything in our power to ensure that these and future students can successfully continue their education at Harvard.

A court hearing is scheduled for later this week where we will advocate for the extension of the restraining order. While we succeeded last week, we acknowledge that many questions and concerns will persist. The Harvard International Office is closely collaborating with our international students to offer assistance.

How might the unsettled circumstances for students influence learning? Are there valuable lessons even during periods of conflict?

Learning often escalates most rapidly amid conflict. We gain a renewed awareness of our strengths and weaknesses. Frequently, we discover that we can accomplish what we previously deemed impossible.

As we consider obstacles to open dialogue and how we have addressed them, I believe that students who are graduating
“““html

I now possess a more profound comprehension of what it signifies to genuinely listen to, and engage with, another individual. I aspire that our students — indeed every participant in our community — will realize that cultivating intimate connections, particularly with those who differ from us, is immensely gratifying. Throughout this journey, we will cultivate enhanced empathy and acquire essential lessons.

What obstacles and prospects do you perceive for graduates? It appears safe to assert that artificial intelligence stands as both, in substantial ways.

It’s premature to foresee how AI will transform the lives and professions of graduating individuals, but proficiency in collaborating with AI is already beneficial in certain fields and practically indispensable in others. With the swift advancements in generative AI, we observe that particular skills related to its application — such as prompt engineering — may diminish in significance as the technology advances.

I anticipate that, overall, the individuals who will flourish in the economy of the future will be those skilled in effectively utilizing technological tools. But who will those individuals be? We have professionals tackling scientific challenges whose mastery lies in AI, alongside others whose expertise is rooted in a specific scientific domain, and many who possess a combination of both. What will constitute the optimal combination? We shall discover this across various fields of application in years to come.

I consider myself among those who believe that fundamental human qualities — empathy, compassion, and curiosity regarding others — will be more crucial than ever as the impact of AI broadens.

How do you reconcile the demands of complex, time-intensive challenges with those requiring swift decisions?

You typically lack the option — you must contend with both. However, even amid urgent decisions, we should consistently contemplate long-term repercussions. As we near our 400th anniversary as an institution, we continuously reap the rewards of visionary choices made by our predecessors. A long-term viewpoint allows us to make investments today whose benefits may come long after, potentially transformative — for instance, that is the essential concept of fundamental scientific research, but it extends far beyond.

You recently declared that the University will allocate $250 million to bolster research at the Schools. What can that funding achieve, and what are its limitations?

The funding we are providing is designed to support the continuity of our research initiatives. It aims to ensure we maintain a robust foundation for research and mitigate the disruptions to the research enterprise that arise from federal funding denials. However, it cannot sustain our research operations indefinitely, so we are closely examining methods to further reduce research costs and diversify our funding sources. Nonetheless, the research breakthroughs at Harvard and other institutions that have contributed to the scientific prominence of the United States would not have been feasible without federal research backing. The collaboration between universities and the federal government is critical for the future scientific achievements of this nation, including at Harvard and in other universities nationwide.

When we discuss reducing research costs, is this viewed as a strategy to navigate a challenging period, or are there potential changes that could ignite innovation and decrease costs in the long term?

The latter. Our endeavors to enhance the efficiency of the scientific enterprise might be more pronounced during financial difficulties, but we should consistently seek ways to accomplish more with fewer resources. This won’t be straightforward. Some of the most pivotal scientific breakthroughs are inherently costly. For instance, we’ve made investments in cryo-electron microscopy, a recently developed technology that necessitates substantial capital investment but has resulted in remarkable scientific progress. High-cost tools, when utilized appropriately, can yield answers more swiftly and affordably than the methods they supersede. Maintaining low costs often requires us to invest wisely, which may sometimes involve making fewer substantial but strategic investments. Our researchers are innovative and resourceful. I am confident they will discover new methods to conduct truly cutting-edge research more efficiently.

Is the endowment regarded as an additional funding source?

The endowment already underpins the operating budgets of our Schools, much of which is directed toward research endeavors. Approximately 80 percent of the endowment comes with restrictions: We can’t use funds designated for a professor of economics, for instance, to finance scientists in a molecular biology lab. Therefore, while it is a crucial asset, the endowment — consisting of around 14,000 endowment funds — cannot serve as a general-purpose fund or, as some may say, as an emergency fund. Additionally, an endowment is meant to remain available indefinitely. Acknowledging those limitations, the endowment can certainly prove beneficial.

If there were to be declines in the endowment’s value — for example, if the substantial endowment tax in the House budget bill were enacted — it would impact all of these endeavors. The consequences would be particularly severe for financial aid, which is heavily supported by endowment funds.

Regarding antisemitism and other forms of bias, how confident are you that the measures Harvard is implementing will transform the campus atmosphere?

We’re building upon efforts we’ve initiated over the last year and a half, alongside the recently released final recommendations from the two task forces. The Schools and the University are actively working on implementing these recommendations. It’s worth examining the recommendations to understand their scope — they address numerous facets of University life.

Some of the actions we’ve undertaken or planned are specifically designed to enhance the experiences of Jewish students. Others aim to educate the broader University community. The latter initiatives include orientation programs, training for faculty, and the introduction of new courses focused on antisemitism and the history of the Middle East. However, a significant portion of our efforts involves altering attitudes toward one another, promoting constructive dialogue and respectful disagreement, and building connections between diverse identities and student groups. It’s a multi-dimensional strategy intended to shift the campus culture.

If this strategy succeeds fully, we will have made substantial strides in combating hate and bias, and it will help prevent the exclusionary behavior reported by Jewish and Israeli students; by Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian students; and by other community members. There is no room for hate at Harvard.

As for the effectiveness of the measures we’re undertaking, it may be too early to ascertain. However, reports of a more welcoming and less charged campus environment throughout the academic year that is drawing to a close give me hope that even our early initiatives are yielding positive outcomes.

While we recognize that Harvard alone cannot eradicate antisemitism — a prejudice that has persisted for over 2,000 years and remains prevalent worldwide — we must do everything within our power to respond to it with determination and humility, understanding that it will necessitate ongoing effort.

Similarly, we must pursue educational initiatives, accommodate religious practices, and cultivate empathy. We have heard similar accounts regarding how Muslim or Palestinian students frequently feel unwelcome and isolated. Our programs focused on communication and fostering connections beyond differences are designed to…

“““html

assist with all varieties of hatred and prejudice.

Does this coincide with the measures the University is implementing to promote diversity of thought and productive disagreement?

Indeed, these are complementary initiatives. We aim to ensure our students encounter a range of viewpoints on the topics we explore, debate, and investigate. There are frequent concerns that institutions like ours exhibit a political homogeneity, as our faculty and students tend to lean leftward compared to the broader American populace. This presents a risk—particularly in the social sciences and humanities—that our community may not experience the complete spectrum of ideas deserving discussion and debate. Additionally, individuals who maintain minority opinions on campus might hesitate to express them. Surveys typically corroborate these sentiments.

A key challenge is to guarantee that individuals presenting a wider array of perspectives feel welcomed on our campus and are at liberty to voice their opinions. We are formulating strategies to invite esteemed, rigorous, and influential speakers to campus, including tenured faculty who will enhance our intellectual landscape and offer fresh insights in various domains, such as policy, governance, and law.

An immediate obstacle is to foster an atmosphere of openness and mutual respect that encourages those who worry about the unpopularity of their views to comfortably express them. What actions must we take as an institution to guarantee those opinions can be acknowledged?

This is where our initiatives to encourage open discourse and meaningful dialogue can create an impact. It is crucial for faculty to exemplify this behavior in classroom settings and cultivate an environment where students feel free to communicate ideas that others might oppose. We have initiated this effort and will persist in expanding upon it.

It is evident that a non-secular institution should not impose a set of beliefs, but do you believe Harvard students graduate with a more solid foundation for forming their own?

Stimulating contemplation about values is deeply embedded within the University. It manifests in obvious fields, such as philosophy and the Divinity School, and is also a significant subject in the Business School. It permeates the humanities as a whole. Nearly all significant literature presents scenarios that challenge readers to think about what defines ethical conduct, why individuals knowingly commit wrongdoings, and the repercussions of failing to adhere to one’s values.

I doubt any student at Harvard College can finish their studies without confronting questions related to values. Judging by the enrollment numbers in Michael Sandel’s “Justice” course, they are eager to seize the opportunity. As in many other areas, we aim to assist our students in learning how to examine values and act upon them, but that does not imply we should dictate which values they ought to adopt. Except for “veritas.” I hope each graduate recognizes the significance of truth and decides to uphold it.