Harvard's administrative staff grew from 1,222 in 1969 to 6,543 in 2021, a 435% increase over five decades. The deep hilarity of this figure is that their undergraduate student population was 6,700 in 1969 and 7,153 in 2021. The ratio of admin to students rose from 1 per 5.5 (already absurd) to 1 per 1.1. We’re basically at the point of each student having their own administrator despite having moved from paper records to the internet age.
The staff and faculty have been chosen for ideological purity, race, gender, sexual identity, and “diversity statements” that have turned interviews and tenure tracks into struggle sessions.
The 3 April letter does deal with speech, but in ways that are required by the provisions of Title VI to which Harvard is exposed by accepting federal funding. The NRA argument is a risky one because there is no Title VI for the NRA.
The best strategy for Harvard is to accept the 3 April approach and reject the 11 April approach. Hopefully that is still possible now; it seems that it was possible before 3 April when some of us advocated it then.
Harvard's administrative staff grew from 1,222 in 1969 to 6,543 in 2021, a 435% increase over five decades. The deep hilarity of this figure is that their undergraduate student population was 6,700 in 1969 and 7,153 in 2021. The ratio of admin to students rose from 1 per 5.5 (already absurd) to 1 per 1.1. We’re basically at the point of each student having their own administrator despite having moved from paper records to the internet age.
The staff and faculty have been chosen for ideological purity, race, gender, sexual identity, and “diversity statements” that have turned interviews and tenure tracks into struggle sessions.
Harvard has a good case in arguing against the overreaching regulation of the 11 April letter (https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2025/04/Letter-Sent-to-Harvard-2025-04-11.pdf) but is making a huge mistake arguing against the reasonable demands of the 3 April letter (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25879226/april-3-harvard-preconditions-letter.pdf).
The 3 April letter does deal with speech, but in ways that are required by the provisions of Title VI to which Harvard is exposed by accepting federal funding. The NRA argument is a risky one because there is no Title VI for the NRA.
The best strategy for Harvard is to accept the 3 April approach and reject the 11 April approach. Hopefully that is still possible now; it seems that it was possible before 3 April when some of us advocated it then.