The University's Clash of Interests

Students, observers, etc. often conceive of Harvard as one mammoth entity, and not as a conglomeration of separate interests. This is sensibly done for the sake of convenience. One broad distinction that deserves to be reiterated, however, is the separation between the administration and the Faculty (and by extension, the students); because despite how closely linked these two groups are and how much overlap there is between them, their interests are very different.

Faculty and students are the less interesting pieces of this puzzle. Generally speaking, professors have three interests: reducing their teaching duties and the number of committees they sit on, ensuring the quality of their classrooms and trying to go on leave more often. Students have even simpler demands: small classes with good professors and no lotteries and useful academic and other advising. These interests together fall under a single umbrella: hiring more, hiring more and hiring more--professors, teaching fellows, assistants, etc.

The administration, by contrast, is interested in many things, but which all fall, more or less, into two (unordered) categories: preserving the Harvard name and reputation and raising money, lots and lots of money.

In many ways, these two sets of interests are at direct odds with each other; this is of course complicated by the fact that many administrators are also important members of the Faculty: see, for example, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68, also a chaired professor of computer science, and Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles, also a chaired professor of chemistry and biochemistry.

Still, as three news items last week brought home to me, the administration is a unique beast, whose concerns are particular and non-overlapping with those of the rest of the Harvard community.

First and most important, Perspective, the liberal campus monthly, revealed that neither of two students who have admitted to and been convicted of indecent assault and battery has been expelled from the College. Both students, Joshua M. Elster, Class of 2000, and D. Drew Douglas, Class of 2000, sexually assaulted two Harvard women last year, and the Ad Board has recommended their dismissal. But the unless the full Faculty vote to expel them, the two will theoretically be allowed to return to Harvard. It is plain and simple that these boys do not deserve ever to return to Harvard, and though they probably will not be allowed to, they should be expelled. (Expulsion is absolute; after a Harvard student is expelled, his or her Harvard career is over.) The fact that they have not yet been either dismissed or expelled is an insult most of all to the two women whom they raped, but also to everyone else here.

In an e-mail to one of the two women who were raped, Perspective reports, Assistant Dean of the College Karen E. Avery '87 likened expulsion to the death penalty: "I learn to think of it in terms of capital punishment where expulsion is the death penalty and dismissal is life imprisonment and I hope that you'll come to see it that way," she wrote. In a Crimson article last Friday, Dean Lewis picked up the same metaphor: "I think the Board does think about dismissal versus expulsion the way others think about capital punishment," he wrote in an e-mail message. "As unlikely as it is that new information could come to light years later that would change the way a case is viewed, the Board and the Faculty have chosen not to exclude absolutely the possibility that it would want to reverse itself later on."

I tend to think I am not the only one who finds this analogy illegitimate. It is true that expulsion, like the death penalty, is irrevocable, while dismissal, like life imprisonment, is not. The similarities, however, stop there. The Ad Board is not a court of law, and expulsion from Harvard, contrary to what some may like to believe, is not as bad as death. Furthermore, let us not forget that both Elster and Douglas are confessed and convicted sex offenders. There is no further evidence needed. These students should not now or ever have the possibility of being readmitted, period.

The second relevant news item of last week is Dean Knowles' announcement of a $4 million project to rebuild a tower atop Memorial Hall which burned down in 1956. "Is it not a fitting end to the century and to the [Capital] Campaign that Memorial Hall should be restored to its proper glory?" he queried. Perhaps I am alone, but I actually think that restoring Mem. Hall to its pre 1956 days could wait, at least until, for example, undergraduates are no longer needed to TF courses. Knowles' announcement illustrates quite starkly where priorities lie--in this typical case, with "glory" and not with quality. Of course, $4 million is just a drop in Harvard's bucket and this particular gift was earmarked for the purpose of restoring the tower, so Mem. Hall doesn't have to wait. And it should not--as long as the University pours comparable amounts of its own money into less glorious channels.

Finally, seniors received a letter and brochure last week concerning the Senior Gift from the program's two co-chairs; and if this year is like last year, we will soon receive a letter from Dean Knowles himself, explaining why we ought to give him an unrestricted gift. The idea of the Senior Gift is not objectionable; what I do object to, however, is the idea that we should give unrestricted gifts to a single-entity Harvard because, as the brochure notes, "unrestricted gifts give the deans the most flexibility, enabling them to direct resources to areas where the need is the greatest." This statement is pure propaganda. It denies the basic truth that Harvard is comprised of groups with competing interests and different conceptions of need.

I will restrict my participation point to financial aid because it is the only specific area for which we can earmark our donations. I want to say thank you to Harvard, but I do not wish to reinforce the idea that Harvard is a unified entity. Instead, I think it is important to stress the fact that one of its interest groups has an agenda often at odds with the concerns and thoughts of the others. Daniel M. Suleiman '99 is a social studies concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.