Harvard’s President Should Quit Talking About How “Divided” It Is
The issue isn’t so much division, it’s delusion
When Alan Garber took over as interim president of Harvard, one of his first communications was a January 8, 2024, email that said, “We have been subjected to an unrelenting focus on fault lines that divide us, which has tested the ties that bind us as a community devoted to learning from one another.”
Now Garber is kicking off the 2024-2025 academic year, and in an interview with the Harvard Gazette, which is published by Harvard’s central administration, he says, “The most challenging aspect of the moment we face now is that our community is divided.”
Two thirds of a year later, again with the division language. I confess I find Garber’s comment puzzling. I have doubts that it is an accurate description of the challenge at Harvard.
For one thing, in the rest of the interview, Garber professes support for diversity. When it comes to “institutional voice,” Garber says, “it is hoped that we will open more space for our students, faculty, and other members of our community to express a range of views on the topics of the day — and discuss and debate them in constructive ways.”
When it comes to the Supreme Court ruling limiting the use of race as a factor in Harvard admissions, Garber insists, “Exposure to a wide range of views, backgrounds, and experiences leads to learning and growth, and our commitment to diversity across many dimensions — demographic, socioeconomic, life experience, ideological, and many others — benefits every member of our community.”
If Garber and Harvard are as committed to diversity as they claim, the “divided” nature of the community would be a success, not a challenge. He says he wants a range of views and that ideological and demographic diversity is a benefit—well, he’s got it.
The lack of specificity about what is dividing the community and how lets readers fill in the gaps themselves with speculation.
Does Garber mean that Harvard is genuinely divided over whether October 7, 2023, was an abhorrent terrorist attack or a praiseworthy effort at Palestinian national liberation against Zionist settler-colonial occupation? Does Garber mean that Harvard is genuinely divided over whether the Hamas terrorists were morally justified in kidnapping and murdering Hersh Goldberg-Polin?
Does Garber mean Harvard is genuinely divided over whether the university should divest its endowment from the arms manufacturers that are helping Israel and America protect themselves from the terrorists? Does Garber mean Harvard is genuinely divided over whether Israel should continue to exist or whether it should be wiped off the map by Iran-backed terrorists? Does Garber mean Harvard is genuinely divided over whether entering classrooms of Jewish professors—or of any professors—and disrupting them with megaphones with calls of “intifada” is appropriate student behavior?
Even if Harvard were, in fact, divided, it would not be helpful to have the president of the university out there publicly reminding everyone of it.
While I am not on the Harvard campus every day anymore, I follow it pretty closely, and my sense of it is that there’s actually a fairly broad consensus in favor of peace in the Middle East, against rape and murder, and for human dignity. There’s a faction of fanatics who have allowed themselves to become deluded by, and to convince others of, the lie that Israel is imposing apartheid and perpetrating genocide with American support, and that the solution is to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel. And there are a lot of people who lack the knowledge or the courage or the inclination to stand up and say that that faction is wrong.
In that sense, the central problem isn’t division, the way that Harvard is divided between campuses in Cambridge and Boston, between international students and Americans, between athletes and non athletes, or between scientists and scholars of the humanities. No, the issue isn’t so much division, it’s delusion. A few professors, a majority of the unionized graduate students, a few vocal undergraduates, and some number of the increasing number of non-ladder teaching staff—preceptors, lecturers—have been deceived by a lie. The main challenge isn’t the division, it’s the extreme and inaccurate nature of the beliefs of the Israel-hating faction, and the willingness of that Israel-hating faction to adopt tactics that disrupt the operation and functioning of the rest of the university and damage its reputation.
I could be wrong. Maybe Garber has a better handle on it. Larry Summers was ousted from the Harvard presidency after a faculty no-confidence vote following his observation that the boycott-divest-sanction Israel movement was an expression of hatred of Jews, so perhaps Garber’s caution and deference in describing the nature of the supposed division is well-founded. Yet to the extent there is a path out of whatever division does exist, it’ll require both diplomacy and directness.
After all, if Summers lost the Harvard presidency for being overly direct, it’s worth remembering too the case of Garber’s immediate predecessor, Claudine Gay. She lost her job in part because she was overly diplomatic and legalistic, and not direct enough, in her testimony to Congress and in her immediate response to October 7, the “word salad” of which Garber and his now-provost, John Manning, were reportedly the main drafters. To the extent that Garber is right about the risks of division, the risk isn’t the existence of different viewpoints. The greater danger is that the fringe faction will scare away the rest of the university from speaking plainly the truth.
Thank you: The Editors is a reader-supported publication. If you haven’t yet become a paying customer, and if you can spare the $8 a month or $80 a year, please do so today to support our growth, sustain our editorial independence, and ensure your continued access. Thanks to those who already have.
I think Garber should find a couple or a trio of accomplished historians to lead a series of talks about Israel’s place in the Middle East, and the history of the Jews and Arabs in the years since the birth of the Zionist movement, including its underlying philosophy. Perhaps adding a political philosopher would bring insight into a very fraught environment in Cambridge. Isn’t this a primary purpose of a university? Isn’t it why we grant them so many privileges?
As classes begin today at Harvard, it will be interesting to see what form Gaza activism takes this academic year.
Gaza activism won't go away - one Jewish first year student told me of moving into the Yard and discovering that a roommate had put up a Palestinian flag in their suite. I doubt that is an isolated example.
The Harvard administration has taken several steps to prevent a recurrence of last year's demonstrations. Gaza activists will likely respond with new approaches that circumvent those rules. As an example, I'd expect graduate students to wrap Gaza activism in the cloak of union activism, seeking the protection of federal rules to cause new forms of disruption.
The Harvard administration tends to move slowly. There is a danger that they will be focused on fighting last year's manifestations. It needs to look over the next hill and anticipate new manifestations.