A Year of Adjustment

Two major changes shaped the University this year, one planned and one unplanned. The first was the shift in the College’s academic calendar, which most notably put fall-term exams in December and lengthened the winter break to almost five weeks. One noticeable effect was a compressed academic schedule in the fall, which made Thanksgiving break as well as the shorter reading period more stressful for students. While we originally supported the calendar change on the grounds that it could reduce stress, that was evidently not its effect this year. The administration and faculty should work to adjust deadlines and workloads to better fit this new schedule, and students should go into next year prepared to cope with the demands of the new schedule.

The calendar change also resulted in a much longer winter vacation. Unfortunately, the administration’s original plan to offer optional programming during this period was eliminated for budgetary reasons. This time period is a valuable opportunity for Harvard to offer supplementary courses for students. The school’s new proposal for a week of programming next year at the end of winter break is simply insufficient compared to, for example, the extensive four-week program MIT offers. Harvard should continue to expand its offerings during January until we have a program that is long enough to provide students with a more comprehensive and deep academic experience. Until then, the administration should broaden its support for students who want to remain on campus during January, including allowing more students who want to engage in extracurricular activities to stay and should offer support such as travel grants for other students.

The other major pressure that Harvard faced was the continuation of the budget crisis that struck the University last year. Harvard’s endowment plummeted nearly 30 percent, and Faculty of Arts and Sciences budget deficits led to many cuts in services. The most visible sign of this may have been the absence of hot breakfasts in the Houses, but other cuts include shrinking library and Bureau of Study Counsel hours. While none of the actions that the University has been forced to take have been unreasonable, administrators should be sure to continue with trepidation.

For example, the Report of the Task Force on University Libraries issued by the University calls for a centralization of the Harvard University Library System, engaging in exchanges with other school libraries, and a transition toward a greater digital rather than physical collection. While these reforms are ultimately positive and particularly helpful in times of budgetary crisis, the University should never let these reforms affect its priority of continuing to accumulate and preserve our own physical collection.

The University’s offering of early retirement packages to professors is another choice that, although necessary in these circumstances, could undermine students’ academic experiences by eliminating some of the most experienced faculty at Harvard. Although this does offer the opportunity to hire new younger faculty, the net effect of the attrition and replacement may be different in different departments, depending on Harvard’s hiring priorities. We hope that Harvard does not have to diminish any area of its course offerings as a result of professors leaving. That said, some measures that the University is taking, such as two-percent merit-based raises for professors and three-percent raises in graduate-student stipends, are unlikely to have anything more than symbolic value.

The suspension of the Harvard Law School’s Public Service Initiative that provided funding for students at the Law School interested in working in public service, is one of the more irresponsible cuts made by the University. Budget cuts should not interfere with the school’s commitment to support students who make the difficult choice to dedicate their lives to serving others, and suspending this program is a disservice both to those students and to the people they could have helped.

We are pleased that the University is making an effort to uphold certain commitments even in spite of budget cuts. Development of the University’s Allston project has somewhat stalled this year due to cuts, but some encouraging progress has been made in certain areas, including a land concession that allows residential development, helping dull the negative effect that halting construction could have on Allston development. We are also glad that the University plans to continue its long-needed project of renewing undergraduate housing despite the budgetary pressure and believe that increasing living space, social space, and privacy in the Houses is a crucial priority.

One common target of criticism regarding the budget is Harvard’s financial management. Harvard’s risky investment strategies earned public criticism for their role in the diminishing of the endowment, which has severely affected the Harvard community. However, these strategies were responsible for Harvard’s enormously high returns in previous years, and we believe that Harvard’s investment practices are ultimately correct in intention. Some have also criticized donations to Harvard, arguing that there are more effective ways to spend money charitably. However, Harvard serves an important role in improving the world and its community: a role that is significantly supported by alumni donations. Furthermore, discouraging those with a passion for education from donating to Harvard is more likely to reduce overall philanthropy than redirect it.

It has been a difficult year for the University; Ultimately, however, it is not the short-term but rather the long-term consequences of budgetary pressure that should be most feared. As long as Harvard does not lose sight of its ultimate objectives during this period and continues to invest in its future and its community, the budgetary crisis will be remembered as only a temporary burden.