It is with a heavy heart that I reflect on the current state of our esteemed institution. It seems to me that we are witnessing what might be the lowest point in the University's storied history, particularly in terms of its standing and reputation in the eyes of the public. The behavior of various leadership groups within Harvard, with their apparent adherence to a singular leftist ideology, disturbingly echoes that of the Maoist Red Guard during China's Cultural Revolution. This historical parallel is not one to be drawn lightly, as it signifies a deviation not only from the University's mission (liberal education & ideological neutrality) but also a failed fiduciary duty to both the institution and the country.
The decision of Harvard's Board to retain President Claudine Gay amidst escalating controversies is not merely an administrative choice but a symbol of a deeper, more systemic issue. This decision reflects a pattern of rigid and radical thinking, pointing to a moral failure within the university's leadership. It’s not just a simple misstep; it's a clear sign that the Board, along with the Alumni Association Executive Committee and over 700 of the faculty, are entrenched in extreme, divisive ideologies. Their conduct strikingly resembles that of a political faction, especially in their apparent determination to maintain power and systematically silence divergent viewpoints.
The Board’s approach to handling substantial criticisms, such as those from investor Bill Ackman, dismissed as mere 'political interference,' is indicative of a worrisome trend. They seem to view challenges to their ideas not as opportunities for dialogue and improvement, but as threats to their authority. This reaction isolates them from crucial feedback, demonstrating a reluctance to engage with opposing views. This insularity could be mitigated by incorporating more politically diverse viewpoints, allowing for a richer discourse.
A 2022 report from The Harvard Crimson heightens these concerns; it revealed that over 97% of Harvard professors hold left-wing views. Shockingly, faculty members with extreme left-wing views outnumber the total number of their conservative counterparts. This significant imbalance in ideological representation within the faculty reflects a pattern similar to the Red Guard’s approach, where a dominant mode of thought was enforced, effectively marginalizing other perspectives. Some might view this as an inadvertent trend, but I believe it to be intentional, and the Board's recent actions seem to bolster this point.
In its handling of university matters, the Board shows a troubling inconsistency. They strictly regulate what they consider 'violent speech,' such as 'fatphobia', but paradoxically seem to allow the propagation of anti-Semitic sentiments under the guise of Marxist Oppressor/Oppressed DEI theories. The public sees this double standard as a significant flaw in their rationale -- one which undermines the university’s commitment to free speech and equitable treatment.
The negative response from the American public, including thousands of Harvard alumni and former donors, underscores the gravity of the situation. The Board’s actions are seen as transcending mere poor governance; they are perceived as a betrayal of trust to the university community and the nation. In my view, the severity of the leadership crisis at Harvard calls for urgent intervention.
The Board should be held accountable for actions that are increasingly perceived as demonstrating a clear bias and a neglect of their fiduciary responsibilities to the University. They have seemingly failed to uphold Harvard’s commitment to critical thought, discourse, and merit, which are the cornerstones of a liberal education. Moreover, they have disappointed the nation by failing to maintain Harvard's stature as a beacon of global excellence, vital for sustaining the United States' global competitiveness.
Harvard, despite its non-profit status, operates like a quasi-hedge fund with a teaching & research arm attached. This arrangement has been historically tolerated, largely due to the belief that Harvard contributes positively to the nation. However, as the University is increasingly accused of indoctrinating students with views antagonistic to America, Capitalism, and Western Civilization, and promoting 'Decolonization' of an 'Imperial' America in what critics call a 'Marxist indoctrination camp,' this tolerance is rapidly eroding. The growing perception is that Harvard might be contributing to the nation's decline rather than its advancement.
Inside Harvard, there might be a sense of normalcy, but outside, the University's brand is suffering a precipitous decline. Detractors now associate Harvard with disparaging terms like 'Hamas University' and 'Plagiarism University,' reflecting a severe reputational crisis. Moreover, this situation has raised questions about why Harvard should continue to receive support in the form of funding, tax-exempt status, low-interest government loans, and other benefits. The homogeneity in the Board's political leanings and ideologies is seen as a significant factor in creating this leftist (some would say, 'Marxist') ideological echo chamber. There is a pressing need for a thorough examination and questioning of the Board's political leanings, motivations and actions to prevent a recurrence of such situations.
Harvard must act swiftly to address these issues. Indeed, some Board members may have to replaced. The university needs a reform focused on intellectual diversity, ethical conduct, and responsible governance. The situation at Harvard is indicative of a broader leadership crisis in American institutions, marked by an inflexible adherence to a single ideology and a disregard for the importance of diverse thought and intellectual freedom. The Harvard community and the general public must demand accountability and reform. Removing some or all of the current Board members may be a crucial step in restoring Harvard's reputation and realigning its leadership with the principles of open inquiry and diverse thinking.
Harvard’s reputation has been tarnished in the public eye, mirroring its abysmal ranking in free speech (last in the nation). The question is: Can Harvard still save itself, or will the government be forced to intervene?