World

World

Harvard chief’s shock exit exposes decade-spanning fractures

Harvard chief’s shock exit exposes decade-spanning fractures
Dr Claudine Gay, then president of Harvard University, testifies before the House Education and Workforce Committee at the Rayburn House Office Building on 5 December 2023 in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing to investigate anti-Semitism on college campuses. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

Harvard University faces increasing pressure to resolve one of the most fractious chapters in its history after the ouster of President Claudine Gay.

The school’s first Black leader resigned Tuesday after just six months — a historic elevation cut short by allegations of plagiarism and anger over her handling of antisemitism on campus in the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.The tumult has tarnished the oldest and richest US university’s brand, led to a revolt among its wealthy donors and deepened rifts between faculty, students and administrators. Harvard Corp., the institution’s top governing authority, is poised to undertake a search for her successor against that backdrop, with the university at the center of broader national debates over academic freedom, free speech, diversity and governance, issues that have divided the campus for years.

“It should be a moment for Harvard to take stock, figure out how we got into this trouble, and make changes to restore its reputation,” said Steven Pinker, a Harvard professor of psychology and well-known author. “Now is the time for Harvard to draw a line between the future and implement reforms for the benefit of itself and higher education in general.”

Read More

Harvard Corp. said it accepted Gay’s resignation with sorrow and pointedly called out the “repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol” directed at her. The now 11-member board, led by former Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, named Provost Alan Garber to serve as interim president and said it’s embarking on a search for a new leader just over a year after settling on Gay, who beat out 600 other candidates.

The university’s reputation took a beating when it was slow to condemn more than 30 student groups who blamed the Hamas attack solely on Israel. Within days, Larry Summers, a former Harvard president, said he was “sickened” by the university’s lack of response and contrasted its silence with Gay’s powerful writing about the killing of George Floyd in 2020, when she was dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Gay sought to quell the controversy, but it escalated as protests proliferated and reports of antisemitic incidents were highlighted on social media. Donors such as billionaires Idan Ofer and Leslie Wexner halted support, while US Senator Mitt Romney accused the university of ignoring the safety of Jewish students.

Congressional Uproar

The furor intensified when Gay appeared before Congress on Dec. 5 to testify about antisemitism on US campuses. Replying to questioning by Representative Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican, Gay and her counterparts at the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology gave widely derided testimony in which they failed to condemn calls for genocide against Jews as a violation of university policy.

Penn President Liz Magill stepped down days later. Gay faced a wave of calls to resign as well, including from Stefanik, investor Bill Ackman and other Harvard alumni.

Professor Avi Loeb, a world-renowned astronomer who’s been at Harvard since 1993, said he was horrified by Gay’s testimony. Loeb, who grew up in Israel and lost 65 members of his father’s family to the Holocaust, said he was worried by the long-term impact on the school, including its ability to raise money from donors and work with Washington legislators.

“The consequences are obvious,” he said before she resigned.

Faculty Support

But 700 other faculty members, many of them from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, vocalized their support for Gay in the wake of the hearing.

They signed a petition defending “the independence of the university” and urged its leadership “to resist political pressures that are at odds with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.”

One of the signatories was Professor Suzanne Blier, who had endorsed Gay to become president.

“President Gay stepping down won’t stop the demoralizing national downturn in civility,” said Blier, a professor of fine arts and of African and African American Studies. “We need calm and reasoned discussion to advance respect and mutual trust — not more division.”

Like some of Gay’s other supporters, Blier had been part of a group that years earlier had sought to remove Summers from Harvard’s top job. He stepped down almost 18 years ago after clashing with faculty, including over remarks he made about women’s aptitude for science and engineering.

DEI Focus

A daughter of Haitian immigrants, Gay was selected in 2022 as the much heralded successor of Lawrence Bacow. Her research as a political scientist often focused on race and one of the hallmarks of her leadership was promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. She took the reins at Harvard in mid-2023, days after the US Supreme Court struck down race as a factor in undergraduate admissions.

“When I became president, I considered myself particularly blessed by the opportunity to serve people from around the world who saw in my presidency a vision of Harvard that affirmed their sense of belonging—their sense that Harvard welcomes people of talent and promise, from every background imaginable, to learn from and grow with one another,” Gay said in her resignation letter. She will remain on the Harvard faculty.

DEI though has long been a target of conservative lawmakers and pundits. After the Congressional hearing, those attacks intensified, including from Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Ackman, who has supported Democrats, increasingly focused his criticisms of Harvard on the diversity initiatives, suggesting that Gay’s appointment resulted from the effort.

One of his former professors called Ackman’s comments about Gay’s selection a “dog whistle” against Black women. Ackman rejected that assertion.

In a lengthy post on X after Gay announced her resignation, Ackman said he’s always supported “diversity in its broadest form,” including race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, sexual identity, viewpoints and politics. But he said DEI has become “a political advocacy movement on behalf of certain groups that are deemed oppressed.”

Ackman went on to say that Pritzker and other Harvard Corp. board members should resign.

Bill Ackman

@BillAckman

In light of today’s news, I thought I would try to take a step back and provide perspective on what this is really all about.

I first became concerned about @Harvard when 34 Harvard student organizations, early on the morning of October 8th before Israel had taken any military…

Sent via Twitter Web App.

View original tweet.

Harvard Corp. said Gay had been the recipient of “repugnant and in some cases racist vitriol” through emails and phone calls.

“These last weeks have helped make clear the work we need to do” to “combat bias and hate in all its forms, to create a learning environment in which we respect each other’s dignity and treat one another with compassion, and to affirm our enduring commitment to open inquiry and free expression in the pursuit of truth,” Gay wrote in her letter.

Ultimately Gay was toppled by growing allegations of plagiarism in her scholarship, including fresh allegations published this week in the Washington Free Beacon. A House Committee has asked Harvard to respond to questions about its academic integrity standards and how it handled claims against Gay.

“We should hold everyone to the highest standards and Harvard should have scholars of the highest level as members of the faculty and as leaders of the university,” David Weitz, a physics professor who has been at Harvard since 1999, said before Gay announced her departure. “How can I tell my students not to plagiarize? How can you hold different standards? I just don’t see it.”

The university’s board, which had backed Gay less than a month ago, said it would stand by its “core values of excellence, inclusiveness, and free inquiry and expression.”

But moving forward won’t be easy. Donors have severed ties and in one worrying sign early-admission applications dropped 17%.

Congress also continues to apply pressure. In addition to the plagiarism inquiry, the committee that invited Gay to testify is still investigating antisemitism on campuses. Stefanik, who took a victory lap after Gay’s resignation, said it’s “just the beginning of a reckoning.”

Pinker has proposed adopting a clear policy on academic freedom, promoting a wide range of viewpoints and embracing institutional neutrality by avoiding pronouncements on events of the day.

“It’s not just about Harvard, but about higher education and institutions in general,” Pinker said.

Gallery

Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Johan Buys says:

    How do you know somebody went to Harvard?

    They will, in any context you can possibly imagine, find a way to work “when I was at Harvard…” into the conversation in under 3 minutes.

  • Lil Mars says:

    Tweet by Ackman is brilliant. (Link is in the article). Articulates how the ‘woke’ have shut down freedom of speech and forced self-censorship; bolstering the right-wing extremists.

    • Pet Bug says:

      Yes, very disturbing read.
      SA is on the same Titanic…

    • Cal Farmer says:

      “Right wing extremists”? Spectacular irony here.

    • Deborah Blaine says:

      Completely disagree. His tweet is just as manipulative as the people he is accusing of manipulating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives for their own ends. And he rambles on terribly. His thesis is based on his own opinion that he’s presenting as research. Ugh. This is why I don’t read tweets usually…

    • Johan says:

      Indeed brilliant in exposing the root of the struggle at Harvard. Exposes two fallacies. (1) Opressor/oppressed is the only lense through which to view society. (2) Categorise and force whole groups of people indiscriminately as either oppressors or oppressed according to surface level attributes.

  • Aadila M says:

    The article misses the point completely.

    What is evident now is that the Zionist lobby is extremely powerful and will launch a smear campaign for anyone that does not play by their rules.

    Even Jewish students at Harvard protesting for a ceasefire faced disciplinary action, but of course, this important context is missing in this article.

    So much for freedom of expression. So much for academic credibility.

    • James Webster says:

      How typical of an indoctrinated Islamophile to find a way to target Zionism over this issue. Like so many others Gay did not hesitate to play the race card, assuming that her race would protect her from the consequences of her actions, she was unable to conceive of the possibility that she was under attack because she had underperformed. Gay, people of her ilk, and Islamophiles are forever whining about hate speech, but calling for the genocide of ANY GROUP is hate speech and therefore Palestinian supporters who do so must be banned under the same hate speech rules they claim so strongly to support. The hypocrisy and violence of Palestinians, Palestinian supporters and the Islamic “faith” can not go unchallenged any longer. Any group, including Islam itself, should be completely banned when it actively encourages hate and calls for genocide. If Islam is such a religion of peace as its followers claim, then why does it not call out violence, hatred and antisemitism as all the other faiths do ?

      • Aadila M says:

        Where’s the evidence that Pro-Palestinian protestors have called for genocide of Jews? Many of the protestors have been Jews themselves.

        The bigger picture: an actual genocide (as described by UN officials, and called for by various Israeli MPs) is currently being perpetuated by the Zionist state.

        Please Google the statements of Gabor Mate, a Holocaust survivor Ron the current genocide.

  • Wendy Dewberry says:

    When academic thought is restricted or steered by polity, we are in trouble. This blow to freedom of speech could be a sign of social control in times to come. Academic institutions should be guarding the right to speak freely above all else.

  • Martin Neethling says:

    Freedom of speech has limits, as we know in South Africa. The question posed to Gay and the other university heads was a pretty easy one – would calling for the genocide of Jews infringe Harvard’s own policies. All she could do, in the most tone deaf fashion, was mumble about ‘context’. In response to what should be an easy ‘yes’.
    The subsequent interrogation into her academic track record was inevitable, not a ‘red herring’ as has been suggested, and the outcome is of a weak academic and a serial plagiarist. If we really support academic excellence then the person who leads an institution like Harvard needs to be the best. She clearly is not.

    • Bob Dubery says:

      I do think the look into her track record was triggered by her response. If she’d said things that pleased pro-Zionists then there would have been no investigation. But she didn’t, and it became a game of seeing exactly what skeletons could be found in her closet.

      It’s possible that the deck was being stacked against her. Congresswoman Stefanik said “This call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally.” Except it isn’t. That’s a misrepresentation of the word “intifada” – and a look at the historic use of that term would have made that clear. So it is possible that, in fact, there had been no calls for genocide.

      If Gay had been prepared to deal with straightforward questions about her own and the universities position on anti-semitism and calls for genocide IF THEY WERE MADE, then she should have been able to give a straightforward answer. But she was questioned as if those calls had already been made on campus. But had they? If they hadn’t, then what we she supposed to have dealt with?

      Be sure of one thing: This constant calling out of the “woke”, the misrepresentation of diversity policies is going to chill free speech, if that’s what these debates are really about.

      The hypocritical right like to act horrified by “cancel culture”. Gay has just been cancelled, and there was going to be no rest until she had been.

      • Karl Sittlinger says:

        “Be sure of one thing: This constant calling out of the “woke”, the misrepresentation of diversity policies is going to chill free speech, if that’s what these debates are really about.”

        Funny that this accusation is the same for both right wing and left wing supporters. I think that some of responses by heavy supporters of the current version of DEI seek to police thought and speech in very much the same way as your accusation. It should be completely ok to discuss whether current trans athletes (male to female) should be competing in women’s professional sport, or not to accept some the new postulates of CRT for instance that only white people can be racist and are so by default and in perpetuity simply due to their skin color without being branded a racist or transphobe.

        I think both sides (left and right) are being very disingenuous in this discussion, never even trying to understand the others viewpoint and problems, often conveniently downplaying the other perspective while selling emotions and opinions as facts.

        Maybe many people are not clearly left or right on all thoughts, but have mixed views depending on the actual topic being discussed. A person can be against heavy gun control, but support women’s rights to abort as an example.
        While I support giving previous disadvantaged a chance, it should not mean that such candidates are beyond reproach or should be excused for their mistakes. Nor is any resistance to this always automatically racism (or
        a other ‘ism’)

      • James Webster says:

        Woke and its ludicrous embrace of DEI is the problem, not the people who criticise it. CRT with its dogma of “white privilege”, “white supremacy” and “micro aggressions” is an unacceptable ideology of lunacy just as an ideology of “black incompetence”, “black victimhood” and “black inferiority” is. Blacks, whites, Asians and every other ethnicity should be held to the same standard. The woke doctrines of Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory and its intrinsic hypocrisy need to be stamped out. If people defend the black “right” to talk of “white privilege”, then whites should demand the “right” to talk of “black incompetence”, after all what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, the hypocrisy manifests when the first perspective is justified and the second criticised as racist. Contrary to what that moron Ibram X. Kendi ( who even deceives the world with his name because his real name is Ibram Henry Rogers ), the delusional Robin diAngelo and various other mud sucking bottom feeding CRT supporters claim, prejudice can not be fought with more prejudice, having being prejudiced in the past does not give one the right to prejudice others in the present. Your biology does not define you as human and worthy of respect, it is purely dictated by your behaviour.

  • John Patson says:

    You have three hours to answer the question: “How can any work as a “political scientist” not include referencing a whole body of untraceable political knowledge, mores, practises and gossip which has been hashed over for centuries?”
    Apart from that little stone in the water I am sorry to say those three presidents got themselves so tied up in knots, at the end of a three hour oral exam, that all their common sense fled.
    Which begs the question, just what sort of interviews did they have to get the job?

    • Pieter van de Venter says:

      Very well put!! All three were absolutely pathetic and deserve to be investigated further. How did they get to the their positions??

      Hopefully I am not going to be called sexist as all three are women??

  • Rehana Moola says:

    Larry Summers is a bigoted elitist. John Stewart exposed him for his views on inflation and interest rates. He was ‘sickened’ by Gay’s lack of response, but his casual attitude towards sacrificing thousands of jobs and people losing their homes so that corporations can continue to make billions of dollars is sick. Unfortunately, his type is all too common in the USA.

  • Iam Fedup says:

    While I’m not a keen supporter of HBS’s elitist culture, nor its undeserved reputation for “superiority” in education, I’m delighted that sense has prevailed, that wholeness has been challenged, and her cheating has been exposed. In many ways, senior academics are even worse than politicians because they think they are intellectually superior, and hardly ever have to account to constituents. As a sessional lecturer at a number of SA’s top universities, I have seen this first hand. The recent controversy at UCT is just one example, and Wits is equally guilty. And these are the people we entrust our kids to?!

  • dexter m says:

    “Comments are free…Facts are sacred ” C.P, Scott . When we as a society cannot agree on facts , but allow partisan politics to challenge facts . How does this end well anyone .

  • staris32 says:

    not very good

  • Michael Coleman says:

    I suggest the administrators consider limiting commenters to a single post and a single reply, and also consider the abusive language used by repetitive commenters.

  • Paul T says:

    The Zionist machinery is indeed inpressive. They have succeeded in introducing and amplifying the label ‘antisemitic’ so successfully that just the mere attaching of that sticker to a person incapacitates them, sometimes permanently. Its a fantastic weapon. Reading further on the ‘antisemitism’ at Harvard, this seems to include things like Jews feeling less welcome, or intimidated by pro palestinian rights protests and calls for the Gaza conflict to be labelled genocide. Some also lament how Jewish intake to Harvard has dropped from 25% in the past to 10% now. Considering how only 2.2% of Americans identify themselves as Jews this is a surprising statistic indeed. With these Ivy league institutions pumping out so many ‘Semites’ into the leadership of corporate America one can only imagine the levers being pulled to prop up and defend the Zionist dream.

  • Johan Buys says:

    If she fails on the plagiarism accusation, she fails regardless of all the other politics of this stupid debate that will have absolutely zero influence on what tragedies unfold in Gaza next week.

    IF is what I said.

  • Tony Reilly says:

    Please read the post by Bill Ackman on this entire Harvard debacle…………..an excellent summary of the vile DEI “methodology” that is filtering into our elite schools in Johannesburg.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox

Download the Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox.

+ Your election day questions answered
+ What's different this election
+ Test yourself! Take the quiz