:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/Y5GF62GTEVH5JFU342XJBPXSDU.jpg)
Claudine Gay’s resignation as Harvard University president was appropriate.
Beginning with her indefensible waffling on Capitol Hill regarding whether calling for the genocide of a specific group would constitute a violation of the university’s code of conduct and then Harvard’s tepid response to significant issues found in her past academic research, it was clear some time ago that Gay couldn’t be an effective president given the controversy. The congressional-hearing disaster was reason alone for her removal, as we said at the time.
Yes, she was a target of conservatives who made no bones they desired her removal due to her and the university’s support for diversity, equity and inclusion principles. Both she and the Harvard board, in statements on the resignation, made clear she had been subject to private threats and rank racism. The board said in its statement, “We condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.”
We certainly agree.
But that’s not all there is to this story. And, unfortunately, we don’t have much insight into why Gay had to go — just three weeks after the Harvard board issued a statement strongly in support of Gay’s continuing in her role. The Tuesday statement from the Harvard Corp. — the 11-member group of fellows who oversee one of the world’s preeminent universities — gave us no clues as to what changed in that brief period.
We do know that conservatives recently had unearthed examples of passages in Gay’s past work that echoed nearly word for word what scholars on the same subject already had written in their own research. In its Dec. 12 statement, the board dismissed earlier alleged instances of plagiarism as a “few instances of inadequate citation” and said they didn’t rise to the level of “research misconduct.” Were these more recent examples why she had to go?
We don’t know. And they’re not saying.
That’s a disservice to the university, its students and a public at large now seeming to grow more curious about how these ivory towers actually function. Out-of-control demonstrations and unpunished harassment of Jewish students following Hamas’ barbaric attack on Israel on Oct. 7 and the Israelis’ massive retaliation in response have provoked alarm at what is happening on our nation’s campuses.
When Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth hemmed and hawed when asked at a congressional hearing whether calling for the genocide of Jews or other populations would constitute a violation of their institutions’ rules, people rightly were aghast. The eyes of the public suddenly were trained on campus life in a way not seen since maybe the Vietnam War era.
The plagiarism concerns were altogether different, but potentially more damaging in terms of Gay’s remaining the highest officer at the university. With student plagiarism even more of a hot button topic today than in years past, thanks to the potentially pernicious effects of artificial intelligence, retaining a president whose scholarship was subject to these questions would have undermined Harvard’s ability to discipline students for such transgressions.
That brings us to the Harvard Corp. Amid the twists and turns on Gay’s fate, the board’s lack of transparency throughout this painful process has been the one constant.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tronc/VIIY5CHLLEE53HRISXOVT4NPHU.jpg)
To be fair, this is not a governance problem that’s confined to Harvard. University trustees — essentially the fiduciary overseers of the nation’s private places of higher learning (public schools have a different governance structure that typically is answerable ultimately to a state’s governor) — often are numerous. Based on publicly available information, such as university websites and filings, it’s nearly impossible to know who on those boards is really making the decisions.
Locally, we saw this dynamic play out last year at Northwestern University when head football coach Pat Fitzgerald first was slapped on the wrist in response to outrageous hazing allegations within his program and later was fired. It was virtually impossible to determine who on the board played a role in those decisions. It still is.
Chicago Tribune Opinion
If university boards have committees, they often aren’t displayed publicly. Who is on those committees if so? No idea.
This is in direct contrast, say, to the boards of publicly traded corporations. There’s much to be desired in corporate governance these days, but company boards at the very least have committees helmed by chairpeople, making it clear who on the board is most responsible for what. In that respect, when things go awry at a corporation, it’s usually quite clear whom to ask about the issue.
It’s not hard to see why universities like their governance to be so opaque. To serve as a board member is supposed to be an honor, not a burden. Preserving anonymity when things go terribly wrong keeps trustees from feeling the direct heat of controversy. Instead, as Harvard’s board has done throughout the Gay controversy, the “corporation” speaks in one voice, says very little and then retreats to the woodwork, where members seem clearly to want to be.
That’s not good enough. Many of these institutions, Harvard among them, are the equivalent of large corporations. Harvard’s endowment is roughly $50 billion. That pile of cash isn’t due just to a few well-heeled donors, who contribute millions and get their names slapped on campus buildings. Lots and lots of ordinary alumni contribute regularly as well. The board members are the stewards of those gifts and owe all those contributors more in the way of explanation than they’ve provided. Far more.
If this excruciating episode has done nothing else, let’s hope it impels universities and colleges across the country to reform their board practices, greatly enhance transparency and give the public reason to have confidence in the decisions being made on campus.
Join the discussion on Twitter @chitribopinions and on Facebook.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.