The Harvard Crimson - Vol. CLII, Reunion Reprints

The Harvard Crimson

PAGE 2. Cold War tensions, campus controversies, and global upheaval — The Crimson has chronicled Harvard and the world for 70 years.

A Half Century at Harvard

FROM THE ARCHIVES 4

CLASS OF 1955

Faculty Hails Censure; HYRC Takes No Stand

2, 1954

Yesterday’s Senate vote to censure

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy will substantially improve the United States’ prestige abroad and diminish “mass hysteria” now prevalent within the country, four faculty members who have opposed McCarthy said last night.

Meanwhile, the Young Republican Club decided by a vote of 20 to 15 not to take any stand on the issue in order “to preserve unity and allow diversity of opinion” within the organization. (The U.S. Senate yesterday condemned by a vote of 67 to 20 McCarthy’s failure to appear before an investigating subcommittee in 1951 and 1952 and cleared the way for final action today on two other censure charges.)

“McCarthy on Skids”

Samuel H. Beer, professor of Government, said that he “expected the censure all along” and predicted favorable reaction from non-Communist nations all over the world. “People abroad haven’t realized that McCarthy is on the skids? and consequently have attributed too much influence to the Senator, “ he said. Beer, who led in the formation of a “Citizens for Censure” group last Monday, said that the Senate

vote would also “make McCarthyites realize how small and weak they are.”

Three other faculty members who signed a pro-censure petition under the auspices of the Liberal Citizens of Massachusetts were unanimous in acclaiming the vote in condemnation of McCarthy.

Pitirim A. Sorokin, professor of Sociology, said that “McCarthy is causing more harm to American democracy than all the Communists put together.” The same sentiment was expressed by George Sarton, professor emeritus of the History of Science. “McCarthy deserves the worst kind of censure,” he stated.

Methods Labeled “Bad”

John D. Wild, professor of Philosophy, found the censure vote “very encouraging and an affirmation of the dignity of the Senate.” Wild said that the McCarthy methods, such as “preying on mass hysteria,” have thus been labeled “definitely bad” by the action of the Senate. At the same time, HYRC president John W. Stephens ‘55 praised his club’s decision not to act on the censure issue, stating it would keep the organization united and help to attract new members. Speaking only for himself, however, Stephens said that the Senate’s

censure vote would benefit the Republican Party on the national level.

The fact that only 35 of the HYRC’s 300 members attended yesterday’s meeting “certainly had nothing to do with the climate of fear” that McCarthy is supposed to have created, Stephens asserted.

Arguments at the HYRC meeting centered not upon the censure proposal itself but upon whether the club should make policy decisions on issues within the Republican party.

Many members supported the censure but stated that any action would bring about dissention within the club. A proposed resolution to “enthusiastically support the action of the Senate” never came to a vote at the meeting.

“I damn McCarthy in private, but as a club we can’t afford to,” one member said.

Meanwhile, supporters of censure action by the club emphasized the importance of taking a forthright stand on the McCarthy issue. “Are we scared, are we playing patsy?” asked one member. “We have to voice our opinions regardless of pressure groups,” he declared.

A few members asserted that by failing to take any action the HYRC would suffer a loss of local prestige and would invite “derogatory remarks” by the CRIMSON.

FEBRUARY 23, 1952

BY PHILIP M. CRONIN CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

The recent Yard cross-burning was termed a “deplorable incident” by Dean of Freshmen Delmar Leighton yesterday, but he contended, “it does not represent the attitude of the undergraduate body on racial discrimination.”

among any group of freshmen. It is understood that no sentiment along these lines has been uncovered.

Petition but No Action

Meanwhile, the Harvard Society for Minority Rights yesterday voted to with sold action on the matter, but agreed a sign any petition that might be circulated condemn-

It does not represent the attitude of the undergraduate body on racial discrimination.

Delmar Leighton Dean of Freshman

“Inquiries among the students reveal that there is a very general condemnation of the act.” Dean Leighton stated. So far, however, the perpetrators of the act have not been uncovered: If they are, the Administrative Board will consider say disciplinary action, he said.

The main purpose of University investigation was to determine if there were definite racial feelings

Cites Cuban Goals In Dillon Talk

Speaking before an increasingly sympathetic audience at Soldiers Field Saturday night, Fidel Castro evoked mingled cheers, hissing, and laughter, and finally brought an eager crowd of about 10,000 to a standing ovation.

Dr. Castro disappointed many who had anticipated an inflammatory address, but his conviction, humor, and obvious anxiety to persuade his listeners soon won their support. The Cuban leader’s frequently disarming unfamiliarity with English made him turn occasionally to an interpreter, and once he even drew help from a member of the audience. Dean Bundy, who introduced the speaker on behalf of the Law School forum and the University, seemed rather out of place as he shared the elevated platform with the Latin revolutionary and his bearded attendants.

“So Far From the People” Immediately winning the crowd’s sympathy by remarking that he was “sorry to be so far from the people,” Dr. Castro

began by recalling his early ambitions to study at Harvard and called the speech “possibly for me the most emotional and significant” of all his addresses in the United States. He remarked that he might have played football at Harvard, and that “possibly we’d have made some victory.”

Dr. Castro, who appeared hoarse but energetic, stressed the importance of a country’s youth being interested in national affairs and urged his listeners to have faith, ideals and self-confidence. Asking for patience and understanding in

have gained power without the support of the people, was for “neither bread without freedom nor freedom without bread.”

The People May Appeal

In the question period which followed the speech, his sincerity was frequently more persuasive than his arguments, and once or twice he drew scattered hissing. Speaking about recent Cuban trials, he said that not only the criminals but the people, too, could appeal for justice, and he called attention to the relative moderation of the Cu -

We proved that it was possible to fight against dictatorship.

judging the events in Cuba, he said his government was working for real, not theoretical freedoms. To great applause, he concluded that the revolutionary government, which could never

ban revolutionaries. After remarking that real dictators would not come to such a meeting and answer questions, he invited everyone to go to Cuba and see conditions for themselves.

Death of President Shocks Cambridge

People in Cambridge were finishing lunch when they heard that President John F. Kennedy was shot, and at 2:15 they knew that he was dead. On Massachusetts Avenue groups clustered by car windows to hear the radio. Transistor radios were everywhere. Students greeted each other with “He’s dead,” and in the restaurants the few diners spoke in low voices. In Harvard Square, dozens of students were standing by the Kiosk, waiting for the extras to begin to arrive. A man in painter’s overalls was arguing with a policeman about putting the flag over the Coop at half-

meet. The flags hanging in front of the brick final clubs were all at half-mast, and in Freedom Square a “Poonie told a friend he had just sent someone to buy two flags for the Castle. In Widener, a girl sobbed hysterically in the front lobby while her friend tried to comfort her. Upstairs students gathered in little groups across the reading room. One boy was asleep with his head on the table; across from him two others discussed whether or not to wake him. In the doorways of dormitories in the Yard, freshmen sat on the stops listening to radios. Only Lamont Library seemed unperturbed; students with af-

ternoon classes studied on.

Soon the bells at Memorial Church were tolling, and the flag at University Hall was at half-mast. A student stood on the grass in the Yard, pounding a tree softly with his fist.

A man, his hat on the ground beside him, lay on his stomach crying. The men washing down the steps of Widener Library had stopped, and sat silently. Outside the Yard, the beginning of a long stream of townspeople were entering St. Paul’s Cathedral. Candles were lit, and thirty people, heads bowed against the pews, were praying.

A small boy stopped a reporter to ask if we would get another President.

yesterday before the H.S.M.R. executive board meeting, suggested that “the people who performed the act should be punished.” He maintained that “people have been punished for much less” and recommended that the cross-burners be placed on probation. Meanwhile, two students criticized sharply an article appearing in the Boston Post which stated that the incident “has been hushed up by University officials.”

The two students. J. Max Bond, Jr. ‘55 and James J. Boone, Jr. ‘55, said that University officials “did not know about the incident.” Bond also denied a statement attributed to him that “it never entered my mind that such a thing could happen at Harvard. I know now that it was no more than a stu-

ing the incident which occurred before the rooms of nine Negro freshmen on February 5. The Liberal Union announced last night that it would go along with H.S.M.R. policy. Paul A. Levine ‘54, president of the H.L.U., said that his group would probably send a petition to all undergraduate organizations condemning the incident.

Walter C. Carrington ‘52, former president of the H.L.U. who spoke

Harvard Professors Fly to Selma To Join King in March for Votes

MARCH 10, 1965

Five Harvard professors and nine graduate students flew to Alabama Monday night to march from Selma to Montgomery with the Rev. Martin Luther King. Three of the professors are from the Divinity School. At a Faculty luncheon on Monday, they decided to join the “Ministers’ March” in response to King’s appeal to clergymen of all faiths. John L. Burkholder, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Divinity, Herbert D. Long, Dean of Students, and max L. Stackhouse, lecturer on Ethics, arrived in Selma late Monday night. The Social Action committee of the Divinity School Student Association sent five students with the professors on the 11 p.m. flight.

The fourth Faculty member now in Selma is H. Jack Geiger, assistant professor of Public Health and founder of the Medical Committee for Human Rights. Geiger went to Selma to treat demonstraters injured in Sunday’s march and to be on hand in case of violence in yesterday’s march.

Alvin C. Plantinga ‘54, visiting lecturer on Philosophy, is also in Selma.

Paul L. Nyhus, teaching fellow in General Education, joined the flight independently. His wife said yesterday that “he was motivated by the brutal films of Sunday’s march and by the appeal of the National Council of Churches.”

Mrs. Nyhus said that her husband called from the National Council of Churches’ headquar-

ters in Selma yesterday morning. He had been told that the phone was tapped, so he spoke German. He said that the group would return at 6 p.m. Wednesday as originally planned and then was cut off. One of the Divinity students, Charies H. Reynolds, was ordained as a Methodist minister in the North Alabama Conference and is a native of that state. According to Richard Horsely, another Divinity student, Reynolds “probably has jeopardized his chances of ever returning there as a minister.” The Divinity School yesterday held service in Andover Chapel to pray “for peace and justice in Selma, Alahama, and for the members of the Harvard Divinity School who have gone to Alabama.”

Fidel Castro speaks at Harvard’s Soldiers Field in April 1959, just months after leading the Cuban Revolution. COURTESY OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES

FROM THE ARCHIVES 5

Police Raid Sit-In At Dawn; 250 Arrested, Dozens Injured

More than 400 policemen charged University Hall early this morning and forcibly--and sometimes violently--removed several hundred students who were occupying the building.

Between 250 and 300 people were arrested in the raid, and nearly 75 students were injured. The arrested students were taken in police paddy wagons and buses directly to district courts in Cambridge.

President Pusey said this morning that the decision to call in police to clear the building came out of the meeting which began yesterday afternoon and ended about 10 p.m. last night. Besides himself, the deans of the Graduate Schools; Dean Ford and Glimp, and other Administration officials were in attendance. “It became clear in the course of the evening that the only possible alternative [to calling in police] was to take no action at all,” he said. An hour before the raid, more than 100 policemen from local suburban forces gathered behind Memorial Hall. There were officers and paddy wagons from Cambridge, Boston, Newton, Somerville, Arlington, Watertown, and the Metropolitan District Commission.

All of the officers had storm helmets, most had gas masks. Patrolmen from Somerville carried large metal shields, and several from other forces carried rifles. At 4:30, the patrolmen were ordered inside of Memorial Hall to receive instructions. Fifteen minutes later, the police formed a long double line at the west door of Mem Hall. Shortly before five, an officer gave the order to march, and the police marched into the Yard behind the buses carrying State Police.

The police buses and cars parked in the Yard between Widener and Memorial Church, while Cambridge and Boston Police marched into the Yard from the Memorial Church gate.

The suburban police forced about two hundred students away from all four doors of University Hall in several quick thrusts. At that time a number of students were clubbed and thrown from the University Hall steps.

After the doors were cleared the police charged students who were standing on the steps of Thayer Hall. About ten Somerville Police charged into the building with shields and riot sticks. During that charge, several policemen pushed Timothy H. S. Venn ‘72 from his wheelchair onto the cement.

State Police then formed lines on the Massachusetts Hall side of the University Hall, and on a signal, charged first the north door, then the south.

Starting at about 5:05, about 75 State Police entered Univer -

sity Hall, and began dragging demonstrators out of the building. The people inside University Hall first heard rumors about the bust at 3:40 a.m. For the next hour, people woke up and milled around the first floor, where they had earlier agreed to make their stand against the police. They sang radical songs, received wet pieces of linen and instructions for their use against tear gas, and the phone numbers of lawyers who had agreed to defend those arrested.

At 4:58 a student rushed in and screamed the “Cops are coming.” A moment later the shining blue helmets of the Massachusetts State Police could be seen through the windows. The demonstrators linked arms and started to chant, “Smash ROTC, no expansion.”

At 5:05 Dean Glimp, standing outside the Hall with a portable megaphone, said, “You have five minutes to vacate the building.” His voice was not audible inside.

At 5:06 Jared Israel ‘67 shouted, “People have come down from the Houses, and are fighting them from the other side.” The crowd roared, unaware that the fighting outside was actually over and the State Police were just waiting, lined up outside. A minute later the police came in. They pushed the people back away from the door with their clubs and several people were knocked down and kicked. The troopers rushed up the stairs, pushing down some of the people standing there.

CRIMSON reporter David I. Bruck ‘70 was standing on the landing or the steps overlooking the southern first-floor corridor when the troopers came in. When they rushed up the stairs, the troopers took him, CRIMSON photographer Timothy Carlson ‘71, and Boston Globe reporter Parker Donham ‘69 up to the second floor Faculty Room. They were arrested even after showing press identification.

Bruck reported from the Court House early this morning. He said that the troopers broke down the first-floor doors with a three-foot battering ram. He said that the troopers pushed the demonstrators up front and then beat several of them with clubs.

The troopers took the reporters upstairs and refused to let them look out the windows.

Several people were thrown bodily from the corridor into the anteroom of the Freshman Dean’s office.

Richard E. Hyland ‘69-3, who chaired the meetings inside during the occupation, was driven in to the room screaming with troopers clubbing his body.

A short brown-haired girl was hurled against the room’s

wooden divider and a trooper shouted, “If you don’t stay there I’ll break your fuckin’ head.”

Then a sharp crack rang out and blood spurted from the head of Robert Miller, a staff member of the New England Free Press. Several students inside had been blinded by a spray and were clutching their eyes.

The troopers herded the people out of the anteroom, jabbing some in the back with clubs, shouting “Faster, faster.” Several were pushed part-way down the stairs, and the group was taken to paddy wagons.

Meanwhile, outside the building, groups of police repeatedly charged students standing in the Old Yard, forcing them back into Thayer, Weld, and Matthews Halls. During these charges several people were injured, including a Life magazine reporter, who suffered a gash across the forehead. One student had a billy club broken over his head, after being repeatedly beaten while he was lying on the ground.

Another student was pulled from Weld Hall, and arrested after he had attempted to retreive his glasses from across the police lines.

The crowd of about 500 students in the Yard chanted, “Pusey Must Go,” “Strike, Strike,” and “Close the Place Down.”

By 5:15, police had started to

load students from inside the building onto buses and paddy wagons. Some resisted and were dragged and shoved into the buses. Within ten minutes, the buses had been filled with about 300 to 400 students, and they left for Middlesex County Third District Court, where the students were booked on charges of criminal trespassing.

Police slowly cleared students from the rest of the yard. At 6 a.m., the State Police marched back to their buses and left.

During the raid, a number of the suburban police wore no badges. A Somerville police officer said that his men had been instructed to remove their badges during the period of the raid.

Robert Tonis, Chief of the University Police, circulated through the crowd of students apologizing for the police action and urging students not to try to confront the police.

“As far as University Police are concerned, we didn’t want to do anything about it,” Tonis said. “But they’re way over our heads now.”

While only suburban police remained in the building, Edward T. Wilcox, secretary to the Gen Ed Committee, walked through University Hall. He said afterwards that “It was pretty messy, but there was no

vandalism.”

Bernard G. Bradley, a Massachusetts public defender, about five assistants, and about fifteen law students are defending the students who were arrested. About 200 demonstrators are being arraigned at the Third District Court of Middlesex County, and another 100 at the Superior Court across the street.

Almost all those arrested are being held on charges of criminal trespass, which carries a maximum fine of $25 and no imprisonment. Several demonstrators are being charged with assault and battery for reportedly injuring police. One student is charged with larceny of person. Witnesses said he had reached across police lines to retrieve his glasses when he was arrested.

Bradley is urging them all to plead not guilty, but some may plead nolo contendere if they want quick final action. They are all being arraigned as indigents to speed up the process.

Bradley said he is pressing for a two to three week continuance. He said he expected Harvard students to be released on their own recognizance. Demonstrators are being booked; then they will be interviewed by a probation officer who will check files for past criminal records; then papers will be typed up and arraignment will take

place. Trial date, bond, and plea will be recorded at that time. The process will take several hours.

Between 5:30 and

More Than 1000 Made A Request

APRIL 29, 1978

More than 1000 students rallied in Harvard Yard Monday, expressing their dissatisfaction with the Corporation’s decision to delay the announcement of its report on University holdings in U.S. companies operating in South Africa. President Bok, in his only public confrontation of the week, crossed the Yard and tried to enter his Mass Hall offices, only to be stopped by students who demanded that he answer their questions about the Corporation’s meeting.

Bok then strolled through Johnston Gate into Harvard Square, a rigid smile on his face, as students pushed around him, yelling their disapproval. They then tried to block the Harvard police cruiser that whipped down Mass Ave to pick up Bok and whisk him

away, but were shoved aside by University policemen. That night, Daniel Steiner ‘54, general counsel to the University, said that “appropriate action” might be taken against the students who blocked Bok’s entry. Attempts to identify the students involved continued through the week, but Steiner said Thursday that no students had yet been identified.

Students at Monday’s demonstration were not thinking about their own well-being, however. Although only 200 participated in the march from the Quad to the Yard, four times that many joined the rally in front of Pusey Library to protest the oppression of South Africa’s blacks.

Administration officials, sitting behind the guarded and locked doors of University and Massachusetts Halls, moved to continue security precautions as memories of past student demonstrations at Harvard, and recent building occupations at North-

east colleges, added to the tension.

Luthut Ragin Jr. ‘76, a United Front member and freshman proctor, told the chanting crowd, “I think it’s fair to say that on Monday, April 24, 1978, the Harvard student body has exploded the myth that there exists a pervasive apathy and an apolitical attitude on campus.”

United Front members then entered Holyoke Center, where they dropped leaflets, talked to employees and left hundreds of messages for Lawrence F. Stevens ‘65, secretary to the ACSR. After the rally broke up, a crowd of 100 students cornered Dean Fox and Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, near University Hall, peppering them with questions, comments and occasional insults.

Monday night marked the end of the beginning, as a core of protesters set up camp outside University Hall, beginning their week-long vigil and awaiting the Corporation’s decision.

Then 3500 Marched in Anger

APRIL 29, 1978

BY GEORGE K. SWEETNAM CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Usually only the Yale game draws so many vocal students.

So when half of Harvard’s student body turned out Thursday night for a demonstration against the Corporation’s moral standstill on its South Africa investment policy, they surprised everyone — including themselves.

Leaders of the United Front, the coalition of student groups that organized the torchlight parade and midnight rally, said they expected no more than 1000 students — the same number that had attended Monday’s rally — to show up in the Yard at 9:30 p.m. But the march started out from the Yard with about 2000 candle-and-torch-bearing protestors. Two-and-a-half hours

later, after winding through the Quad, the Law School and the River Houses, it returned to the Yard with a chanting crowd of about 3500.

Even police estimates of crowd size varied, from a low of 2500 to a high of more than 4000. But give or take 1000, it was clearly the largest demonstration at Harvard since 1972, when black students occupied Mass Hall for a week to protest Harvard’s ownership of stock in the Gulf Oil Company, which had large operations in Angola. And the marchers were remarkably well-behaved, keeping to the sidewalks and off the streets when marshals’ asked them, and keeping their anger focused on a distant injustice, an economic system, and just a few top decision-makers.

No one this week had any ready explanations for the size of the crowd. Clearly, however, student concern about Harvard’s connections with apart-

heid had been building — from small demonstrations of 40 to 100 students outside meetings of the Corporation’s Advisory Committee on Shareholder Responsibility in February and March, to a 400-student picket of a late March Corporation meeting, to an open Corporation hearing two weeks ago that 400 people attended. The demonstration that started Thursday night ended yesterday with a day-long sit-in outside University Hall preventing administrators from entering.

Riot police gather in Harvard Square amid anti-war protests in April 1972. COURTESY OF PETER A. SOUTHWICK

FROM THE ARCHIVES

Nobel Prize Winner Tutu Attacks Investments in South Africa

DECEMBER 4,

BY DAVID S. GRAHAM CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

In a four hour Harvard visit yesterday,

Peace Prize

ner Bishop Desmond M Tutu charged that U.S. investment in South Africa directly supports apartheid, his country’s state mandated system of segregation. Tutu told a Memorial Church audience of almost 500 listeners of the plight of his country’s political prisoners and the lack of civil rights which Black South Africans face. He then

said, “That is the kind of system that those who invest in South Africa are buttressing, whether they like it or not.” Tutu’s remarks at the prayer service capped off a day in Boston, which also saw him receive a key to the city from Mayor Raymond L. Flynn, attend a luncheon with students and faculty at the Faculty Club, and give a brief press conference in Robinson Hall. He was brought to Cambridge by the Harvard Foundation, an organization designed to foster interracial harmony on campus. Throughout the day, the 53 year old Anglican bishop sounded a broad message

about the inalienability of civil rights for his people. But Tutu’s specific remarks about foreign investment were of special interest on a campus where debate has raged for more than a decade over Harvard’s investments in companies doing business in South Africa.

Criticism

At his midday press conference before the service, Tutu said that by South African law he is forbidden from advocating foreign “disinvestment” from his country, but can only criticize investment.

“I can’t say ‘Hey, I support

disinvestment’ because that would be an indictable offense back in South Africa,” Tutu said. “But I will certainly say that I expect those who want to support us to exert all the pressure they can on the South African government — political, diplomatic, and above all economic pressure.”

Fielding a question about the suffering among Black South Africans that might be caused by disinvestment. Tutu said, “It apartheid is going to be changed by even additional suffering it is far better to take on that rather than let us have [apartheid] go on and on.”

President Bok has long ar -

Prince Charles

sador to the U.S., also met the royal protégé at Logan.

Charles, Prince of Wales, took a whirlwind tour around the Boston area and was honored at a formal dinner in Memorial Hall yesterday as part of his two-day stay to commemorate Harvard’s 350th anniversary. Today, the Prince will deliver the keynote address at the first of three 350th convocations, attend a symposium on urban architecture, and meet with select alumni, faculty, and students.

A capacity crowd of about 18,000 people will gather in Tercentenary Theater at 10 a.m. to hear the Prince, who was invited to Harvard as a graduate and a representative of Cambridge University in England, the alma mater of Harvard’s founders. The subject of the speech has yet to be disclosed, but Victor Chapman, Charles’ press secretary, said Tuesday that the Prince had written his speech last week and was now reworking it. “It’s not unusual for the Prince of Wales to do this on a speech,” Chapman said.

President Derek C. Bok and Chairman of the 350th Commission Francis H. Burr ‘35, and their spouses, met Charles on the steps of Memorial Hall yesterday at 7:45 p.m. as he pulled up in a grey RollsRoyce. After the five filed into Memorial Hall, a bagpiper played as the remaining 400 or so dignitaries, prominent Harvard faculty, and administrators entered the building.

Burr had welcomed the 37-yearold Prince to Boston Tuesday evening as he alighted from his British Aerospace four-engine jet at 6:10 p.m. Gov. Michael S. Dukakis, Mayor Raymond L. Flynn, and Sir Antony Acland, the British ambas-

Charles arrived bearing an 11inch crystal bowl engraved with his and Harvard’s coats of arms. He will present President Derek C. Bok with the bowl at a special luncheon in his honor today at Widener Library and receive a specially commissioned gift of Steuben crystal from the University.

Princess Diana decided earlier this summer not to accompany her spouse to Cambridge on his first official visit to the City of Boston.

Prince Charles, who is staying at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Boston, is joined by a contingent of British and U.S. Secret Service, who have provided for his security by closing off roadways and controlling crowds all over the city.

Earlier yesterday, the heir apparent to the British throne visited a market mill in Lowell, Wang Laboratories, and the Harvard-affiliated Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, where he met with children being treated at the center.

At Wang Laboratories, Charles saw a demonstration of a machine which edits pictures and of another device that converts written text into voice messages. “How do you get it to talk with an American accent?” he asked.

After talking with mill workers in the middle of Lowell, Charles participated in a conference on youth employment. Earlier yesterday, he spoke with members of Operation Raleigh, a leadership and service program which sends teenagers abroad on three-month projects.

About 40 people waited in vain on the curb of Kirkland St. in back of Memorial Hall in an attempt to catch a glimpse of the Prince as his car pulled up to the 350th dinner there. Charles exited from the grey Rolls-Royce and was ushered directly onto the steps of the building. The group of about 100 guests

of the British consulate that awaited the Prince’s arrival in Boston Tuesday had much better luck. After Charles disembarked from his plane, he inspected the 40-man Massachusetts Ceremonial Unit, which played “God Save the Queen” for him.

Charles then spoke with some of the people waiting to greet him. He talked first with Joyce Scolefield, a local resident, who held the official flag of Wales—a green and white banner with a red dragon emblazoned on it. A beaming Scolefield, who drove down to Newport to purchase the flag, said of her discussion with the Prince, “He just said that he was happy to be in Boston.”

This trip marks the eighth time the Prince of Wales has visited the U.S. in the past 15 years. His last visit was to Texas in February for that state’s 150th anniversary.

Convocation

Prince Charles will participate in the convocation with David P. Gardner, president of the University of California system; Paul E. Gray, president of MIT; Benno C. Schmidt Jr., president of Yale University; and the Rt. Hon. Lord Adrian, vice chancellor of the University of Cambridge, England, who are slotted to give their greetings to Harvard.

Several Harvard professors will give Latin, Greek, and Hebrew salutations, and Plummer Professor of Christian Morals the Rev. Peter J. Gomes will speak on Harvard’s Puritan heritage. The chief marshal of the University, Richard M. Hunt, will then introduce the Prince.

After the convocation today, Bok will escort the Prince into a lunch in his honor in Widener Library, which alumni and faculty will attend. At the conclusion of the meal, the two will exchange gifts and toast one another’s institution.

gued against Harvard divestiture from South Africa on the grounds that it would be ineffective and an inappropriate expression of political sentiment by the University.

While Bok’s view did come under indirect attack, he also won praise from Tutu for his efforts to bring Black South African students to study at Harvard. In addition, the bishop praised Harvard for awarding degree in 1979, a move which he said had enormous symbolic importance in his native country.

Bok and Tutu attempted to meet both in the morning and in the afternoon, but their schedules and the brevity of Tutu’s four-hour stay made a meeting impossible, officials said.

Tutu, who has been appointed the Archbishop of Johannesburg, is spending the year as a visiting professor at the General Theological Seminary in New York City.

As the general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, he has been the most prominent spokesman against apartheid on the world stage, continually lashing out against the policies of the white minority government. He won the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this fall for his activities against apartheid.

Service

Tutu’s brief speech at Memorial Church was part of an hourlong service, which included prayer, singing by Harvard’s Kuumba Singers, and remarks by S. Allen Counter, the director of the Foundation, and Peter S. Gomes, the minister of Memorial Church. Tutu told the audience that the actions of Americans to pressure the South African government “have not gone without notice” among Blacks in the country. “At least in this respect I do speak on behalf of millions who would wish to come here to express their thanks to you for your concern,” he said.

He also related several anecdotes about the support he has received from Americans, including that of an Anchorite run living in a forest in California who gets up every morning at two and begins her day by praying for the Bishop and his people.

With such support for the anti-apartheid cause, Tutu asked, “What chance does the South African Government stand?” At the end of the speech the bishop received a two-minute standing ovation.

Tutu used his press conference to make a variety of criticisms of the South African government and points about the political situation. He pointed out, for instance, shortcomings in the so-called Sullivan Principles, a set of equal opportunity and fair-labor guidelines for American businesses in South Africa.

“It seeks to make apartheid slightly more comfortable. We don’t want apartheid to be more comfortable. We want it to be removed,” he said. When asked how he felt about an ongoing protest against apartheid by a group of prominent American Blacks, including several congressmen and mayors, he responded, “I would like to pay a very warm tribute to those who put their bodies where their mouths are.”

Two protestors have been sitting down at the gates of the South African embassy in Washington each day for almost two weeks, and all have been arrested and spent a night in jail. The bishop also criticized the new South African constitution, which for the first time allows limited participation in the government for Indians and persons of mixed race. He said the constitution “entrenches racism.” Before beginning his tour at Harvard, Tutu received the key to the city from Mayor Flynn at a Farewell Hall ceremony.

Harvard students demonstrated against South African apartheid in the 1980s. ASHLEY ZHOU — CRIMSON DESIGNER

FROM THE ARCHIVES 7

Jeffries Speaks At Sanders; Hundreds Protest Outside

BY ANNA D. WILDE CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

A subdued crowd of approximately 450 protested City University of New York professor Leonard Jeffries before his speech last night in Memorial Hall’s Sanders Theatre.

Protesters, shivering in the below-freezing temperatures, waved signs with messages such as “No bigots at Harvard” and “Uphold dignity, denounce racism.” The protest took place in front of the Science Center, around the corner from Memorial Hall’s front entrance, and was out of sight of those waiting in line to attend Jeffries’ speech.

There was little noise and no chanting, with applause generally limited to pauses during the 11 authorized speeches, and muffled by the gloved or mittened hands of the demonstrators.

J. Eliot Morgan ’92, a Crimson editor who alleges his life was threatened by Jeffries in an earlier interview, drew the event’s most intense applause for his denunciation of Jeffries.

“He expected us to be passive,” Morgan said. “He counted wrong here.”

Hillel Coordinating Council Chair Shai A. Held ’94, organizer of the protest, began the rally by noting that many defenders of Jeffries have claimed some

CLASS OF 2005

of his most controversial statements have to be taken in context.

“My friends, in what context are we to respond to lies?” he asked the crowd.

Then, citing Jeffries’ belittlement of the Holocaust, Held called for members of each of the protesting groups to come to the podium. Each representative read the name of a concentration camp site and said his or her organization remembered the camp.

Tomni Dance, race relations tutor in North House, read a statement from Assistant Dean for Minority Affairs and Race Relations Hilda Hernandez-Gravelle, one of the few officials not on the scene last night. The statement called for open-mindedness and a willingness to listen to Jeffries, no matter how misguided some of his statements have been.

“I believe it is crucial for the Leonard Jeffries and the David Dukes of the world to freely express themselves,” read Dance from Hernandez-Gravelle’s statement.

That stance drew an attack from Thomson Professor of Government Martin L. Kilson, who said, “To some extent I believe the statement that was made before us was a bit obscurantist.”

“Jeffries’ presence here represents an insult to a majority of our population here at Harvard College,” Kilson said. “I’m

thoroughly convinced that Jeffries represents evil,” he said.

Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III was one of a number of Harvard officials present at the rally. He conferred with representatives of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) and urged them to move out of the forefront of the protest scene.

At one point, Epps told the

Faculty Alters Grading, Honors

MAY 22, 2002

BY KATE L. RAKOCZY

At yesterday’s Faculty meeting, professors unanimously adopted a new 4.0 grading scale and restricted the proportion of honors awarded each year to 60 percent of the graduating class.

The policy changes mark the culmination of a year-long discussion by the Faculty about how to best combat grade and honors inflation at Harvard.

The honors changes, which will take effect for the Class of 2005, should drastically reduce the number of honors degrees awarded by Harvard each year, said Dean of Undergraduate Education Susan G. Pedersen ’81-’82 yesterday. Pedersen said that roughly five times more students will graduate without honors once the change is implemented, citing a report on grading practices and the determination of honors that her office published earlier this month. Last year, roughly 90 percent of seniors graduated with some form of honors. Under the new honors guidelines, the proportion of seniors who may graduate with summa cum laude and magna cum laude degrees will be limited to 20 percent of the class. Summa cum laude honors will continue to be capped at five percent of seniors, as they have been for the past few years. Those students recommended for honors by their department with the next highest averages will then be awarded cum laude degrees—with the total number of students receiving summa, magna and cum degrees not to exceed 50 percent of the graduating class. The caps do not limit the percentage of magna degrees awarded to 15—if fewer than five percent of seniors are awarded summa cum laude, the remainder may be awarded magna cum laude degrees. Similarly, if fewer than 20 percent of seniors earn magna and summa distinctions, more than 30 percent may receive cum laude honors. Candidates not recommended for honors by their department will still be eligible to receive a cum laude degree, but this distinction will be limited

to ten percent of seniors. A proposal to eliminate this form of honors faded after it was discussed at a Faculty meeting earlier this year.

The proposal for the honors changes did not provoke much opposition from faculty at yesterday’s meeting.

The greatest concern voiced by professors was that the honors restrictions will discourage students from writing theses, since students will be less likely to receive official recognition for their thesis in the form of an honors degree. Currently, writing a thesis is an almost surefire way of graduating with honors.

Professors also worried that the new rules might encourage students to select easier classes to inflate their grades.

Pedersen acknowledged yesterday that there will be unforeseen consequences to the changes, which is why she said the new policy has built into it a recommendation that it be reviewed within five years of its implementation.

The switch to a 4.0 grading scale from the Faculty’s current 15-point scale was not controversial. Most Faculty who spoke on the change at yesterday’s meeting agreed that it could only help to clarify the meaning of Harvard’s grades to the general public as well as to professors and students.

University President Lawrence H. Summers expressed his approval for yesterday’s legislation.

“I welcome the Faculty’s adoption of higher standards for honors, more transparent grading and sounder grading practices in the future,” Summers said in a statement.

The grading and honors proposals adopted yesterday were drafted by the Educational Policy Committee and shaped by the Faculty Council.

Pedersen said yesterday that her office will continue to push the Faculty to clarify the meaning of its grades.

She said her office would circulate among the entire Faculty a compilation of the materials collected during its year-long review of Harvard’s grading practices to further conversations about these issues.

Also at yesterday’s meeting, Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 announced the creation of a University-wide committee to review and “make rec -

ommendations to the Dean of Harvard College and to the Provost on all institutional support services for victims of sexual violence and all preventive, educational, and outreach programs to reduce the incidence of sexual violence in Harvard College.”

Lewis said yesterday the formation of the committee was a response to concerns voiced by students and professors earlier this month, after the Faculty approved a new Administrative Board policy for handling peer disputes, including allegations of sexual assault.

Under the new policy, the Ad Board will no longer investigate allegations for which there is no corroborating evidence.

Following the meeting, some Faculty expressed their concern that the change had been hastily approved—professors had not been notified of the proposed change prior to the meeting, and the actual wording of the new policy was not distributed among Faculty at the meeting, before they voted to adopt it.

Lewis apologized yesterday for the way the policy change was carried out, though he noted that it was the same procedure used in previous years to adopt changes in Ad Board procedure.

The new committee will be chaired by Dr. Jennifer Leaning ’68, professor of international health at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The Faculty also approved the Courses of Instruction for the 2002-2003 academic year— including a roster of 92 freshmen seminars. The program this year offered 61 seminars, a surge over the 36 offered the previous year.

Yesterday’s meeting marked more than the end of the academic year.

It was also the last time that Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles sat at the round table where the deans and President reside during each Faculty meeting.

Knowles passed the baton yesterday to Geisinger Professor of History William C. Kirby, whom Summers selected at the end of last week to be the next dean of the Faculty.

Summers presented the dean-elect to the Faculty at the start of yesterday’s meeting. Summers praised Kirby’s ac -

JDL representative that he had spoken with Jeffries earlier in the day. Epps confirmed later, in an interview, that he had contacted Jeffries to discuss the format of the speech and details of his arrival.

Rabbi Sally Finestone, acting Director of Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel, spoke critically at the rally of outside organiza -

tions in attendance, including the JDL and Kahane Chai.

“We did not invite the Jewish Defense League. It is the students’ rally,” Finestone said. At one point, sign-carrying members of Hillel rushed in front of a local television camera to obscure signs held by JDL members.

Michael Slomich, Execu -

tive Director of the JDL Northeast regional chapter, said that about 30 of the group’s members were at the protest. He said he was contacted initially by Morgan. Kahane Chai members passed out sheets saying “Jeffries is a racist pig” and “Jews must strike against their enemies.”

complishments as professor and administrator.

“The better people know Bill…the more loudly they tend to sing his praises,” he said.

Summers bid the China scholar well with a Chinese expression of good luck meaning, “I wish you a prosperous wind.”

The Faculty greeted Kirby with a standing ovation.

Kirby thanked Summers for the opportunity to lead the Faculty and expressed his enthusiasm for the years ahead. He also praised Knowles for

leaving him a “rejuvenated” Faculty of Arts and Sciences. At the end of yesterday’s meeting, Knowles requested a moment to thank the Faculty for its support during his 11 years as dean.

from

which he said has

“I am grateful to everyone who sits, and has sat, at the round table, to every member of the Faculty and particularly for the wonderful support and forbearance of the staff in University Hall and across the FAS,” Knowles said. “I have had a marvelously fulfilling decade.” Knowles ended with a

well during his tenure as

“See everything. Overlook a great deal. Improve a little.” “Together,” Knowles said, “I hope we have managed to achieve all three.” Following those words, the Faculty saluted Knowles with his second standing ovation of the afternoon, and the president brought the meeting to a close.

Students protest the Afrocentrist scholar Leonard Jeffries’ speech at Harvard over his antisemitic statements. CRIMSON FILE PHOTO

A student workspace, complete with a laptop, printer, and stacks of papers. The push to modernize grading came just as technology began reshaping daily academic life. COURTESY OF SARAH KLEINSCHMIDT

FROM THE ARCHIVES

FEBRUARY 7, 2007

Drew Gilpin Faust was unanimously confirmed as Harvard’s first female president yesterday by the alumni Board of Overseers, setting the stage for her to become the 28th leader of the University when she takes office on July 1. A veteran academic and Civil War historian who has led the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study since 2001, Faust was offered the presidency earlier this week by the six fellows of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s executive governing body. She has been widely praised for her strong interpersonal skills and familiarity with Harvard’s schools, and for skillfully transforming Radcliffe from a beloved women’s college into a sought-after hub of academic fellowships.

At her first press conference yesterday afternoon, Faust appeared excited and energetic, saying that her appointment would have been unthinkable a generation ago.

“I’m not the woman president of Harvard. I’m the president of Harvard,” she said during a press conference at the Barker Center with a bust of John Harvard looming over her. Yesterday’s official confirmation, coming three days after The Crimson first reported that the committee had selected Faust, wraps up a presidential search that lasted nearly one year. Her predecessor, Lawrence H. Summers, announced his resignation from the presidency on Feb. 21, 2006, amid clashes with faculty. Faust did not limit her comments to Harvard as she highlighted the need to value higher education across the country.

“Americans sacrifice and struggle to get their children into college or university, yet mock those same institutions as self-indulgent, hidebound, badly managed,” she said.

In contrast to the leadership style of Summers, who often spoke freely on political topics of the day, Faust said that she would use the presidency as a

CLASS OF 2015

pulpit to influence higher education. The path Harvard sets “helps to define the character and meaning of the universities of the 21st century,” she said.

At the end of her remarks, tears glazed Faust’s eyes and her voice faltered as she accepted a standing ovation from the crowd.

“I love universities and I love this one in particular,” she said. “I can imagine no higher calling, no more exciting adventure than to serve as the president of Harvard.”

James R. Houghton ’58, the senior fellow of the Corporation, said it was a “great and historic day for Harvard.”

“The fact that she is a woman is great,” Houghton told The Crimson before the press conference. “But I think we have the best candidate.”

He kissed Faust on the cheek before she opened the floor to reporters’ questions.

When asked how she would manage the transition from overseeing a budget of $16 million at Radcliffe to nearly $3 billion for the University, Faust replied, “thoughtfully,” before adding that she had discussed the issue at length with the search committee and acknowledged that she had a lot to learn.

Faust said that though the presidency will likely prevent her from doing scholarly work, she hopes to continue to teach her conference course this spring on the Civil War. She said she will focus the next few months on filling soon-to-be vacant deanships at the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Medical School, Design School, and with her departure, the Radcliffe Institute.

Faust was set to meet with the faculty and student advisory committees to the presidential search last night, and she scheduled a meeting this morning with her Radcliffe staff and fellows.

A Scrutinized Search

Members of Harvard’s two governing boards said that they thought Faust would pursue largely the same priorities as Summers—most notably the review of the undergraduate curriculum, the Allston expansion, and the emphasis on sci -

entific research.

Corporation fellow Nannerl O. Keohane said in an interview that the governing boards “were not looking for an anti-Larry” candidate and that they wanted to find somebody who “shared Summers’ commitment to positive change.”

“Most of us, certainly on the governing boards, feel that the priorities that Larry Summers articulated are still the ones that we should focus on,” Keohane said. “We wanted the same sort of vision, and we would have been really worried if we had a candidate who had come in and said that their priorities were 180 degrees in the opposite direction.”

William F. Lee ’72, an overseer who served on the search committee, said that one of Faust’s strengths—both as a candidate and in terms of governing the University—is her “ability to build relationships” and her “ability to decide while listening and being able to laugh.”

“Every time we see her speak,” Lee said, “I feel better and better.”

Corporation fellow Rob -

ert D. Reischauer ’63 also shed some light on the notoriously secretive search process, saying that performing the search would be much easier without consistent leaks to the media because such leaks force candidates to distance themselves publicly.

He added that public denials often belied private expressions of interest, and that there were “definitely some people who denied interest publicly who went through backchannels to communicate with the search committee.”

Houghton said that Thomas R. Cech, the president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and one of the final candidates for the presidency, took himself out of the running very late into the search.

He would not say whether Cech had been offered the job, though he winked when asked. Reischauer added that Cech “was a serious candidate,” but would not comment further.

Presidential Praise

Interim President Derek C. Bok praised Faust’s abilities, but also took a moment to reassure Faust herself about the nature of leading the nation’s oldest university.

“Drew, you have a wonderful job,” Bok said. “Don’t let anybody tell you this is an onerous job, that this is a difficult job.”

He added that he hoped she would serve 30 or 40 years.

Former Harvard President Neil L. Rudenstine said in an interview from Puerto Rico Friday evening that he “couldn’t be happier” about Faust’s selection.

“I think she is a person who can bring other people together, and at the same time she has tremendous clarity of vision, and she’s able to be very, very decisive in her very tactful and very strong way,” said the former president, who first appointed Faust to be dean of Radcliffe in 2000.

Faust said in an interview with The Crimson that Harvard has been reinvigorated during the tenure of Bok, who took office last summer.

Summers, who tapped Faust

to lead two gender diversity task forces after his comments on women in science two years ago, called her an “outstanding scholar” and “extraordinary academic leader.”

“I look forward to the great things that the Harvard community will accomplish in the years ahead with Drew’s leadership,” he wrote in an e-mail. On the subject of her predecessor, Faust said that of all of former University President Lawrence H. Summers’ qualities, the one she wished she could emulate most were his “sharp analytic skills.”

“Larry has always been very good at identifying problems and analyzing problems,” she said. “He made me think harder and think better.”

In her speech she acknowledged Summers’ “powerful thinking and impatience for results.” And in the interview, she offered her own thoughts on innate differences. “I think women have the aptitude to do anything, and that includes being president of Harvard,” she said.

APRIL 15, 2013

In the hours after bombings at the Boston Marathon, Harvard Square was thrust into a state of unrest following unconfirmed bomb threats, an evacuation of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and the cancellation of some evening classes. The Cambridge Police Department confirmed that the area was clear of all potential threats Monday evening.

In response to a fire and possible explosion at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston, University officials closed the eponymous Kennedy School Monday afternoon, according to a University official. Law enforcement has not yet determined whether the incident at the library is related to the Boston Marathon blasts, which killed three people and injured more than 130.

The Kennedy School sent emergency text messages to students late Monday afternoon, alerting them that the school would be closing for the day and instructing them to evacuate the buildings. University officials did not immediately employ MessageMe— the alert system used to contact students through text, phone, and email during emergencies—

following the explosions at the Marathon and bomb threats in Cambridge, but administrators sent out a number of emails beginning about an hour after the threats.

In an email to Undergraduate Council President Tara Raghuveer ’14 circulated over the Adams House email list, Associate Dean of the College John “Jay” L. Ellison reported that Harvard Yard was not under lock down, although vehicle gates were locked.

In an email to the entire Harvard community, Harvard Executive Vice President Katherine N. Lapp wrote that the University was monitoring the situation and that there were no reports of Harvard affiliates injured in the incidents.

Students were also asked by Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds to notify their resident deans of any students running or watching the marathon. The Extension School was also closed Monday night to accommodate students and staff limited by public transportation closures. In addition, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Michael D. Smith confirmed the cancellation of all FAS classes and sections in an email to students, staff, and faculty Monday evening. “We do so out of respect for the tragic events at the Boston Marathon earlier today, and in the understanding that many in our community are legitimately

concerned this evening,” Smith wrote. The decision to reschedule exams set for Monday night was left to professors, Smith wrote, and classes were set to proceed as normal on Tuesday. Throughout Monday evening, CPD tweeted a total of dozen potential “INCIDENTS/BOMBS/ THREATS,” including a number located around Harvard Square. In response to a potential threat at Brattle Street and Farwell Place at 4 p.m., police cleared

an approximately one block radius around a trash bin containing a suspicious package until the package was removed. In another incident, officers responded to the delivery of a small Amazon.com package to Fairfax Hall at 1306 Mass. Ave. The building, which is currently being used as a swing space for Quincy House residents, was quickly confirmed as clear. A threat was also reported at Dunster Street and Mt. Auburn Street.

MARCH 11, 2020 BY CRIMSON NEWS

All Harvard courses will move to remote instruction beginning March 23 as a result of a growing global coronavirus outbreak, University President Lawrence S. Bacow announced in an email Tuesday morning. The University will also ask students not to return from spring break.

“Students are asked not to return to campus after Spring Recess and to meet academic requirements remotely until further notice,” Bacow wrote. “Students who need to remain on campus will also receive instruction remotely and must prepare for severely limited on-campus activities and interactions. All graduate students will transition to remote work wherever possible.”

The move follows both similar decisions at other Ivy League universities in recent days and rapid changes on campus. As the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in Massachusetts rises, events and venues have closed, travel restrictions have tightened, and University affiliates have questioned how the disease will affect life and work on campus. Harvard has seen similarly seismic changes to operations only in wartime. Spring recess officially begins this Saturday and concludes on March 22. The next day, students will attend classes virtually — a possibility Harvard Universi-

ty Health Services director Giang T. Nguyen and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Claudine Gay first raised at a faculty meeting earlier this month. Since then, tabs for the online meeting platform Zoom have popped up on course websites and many faculty have tested it with their classes.

Bacow wrote Monday that Harvard will now strongly discourage gatherings of more than 25 people, a change from the previous guidance to rethink events of 100 or more.

“Despite our best efforts to bring the University’s resources to bear on this virus, we are still faced with uncertainty— and the considerable unease brought on by uncertainty,” Bacow wrote. “It will take time for researchers, a good many of them who are our colleagues, to understand enough about this disease to mount a reliable defense against it. Now more than ever, we must do our utmost to protect those among us who are most vulnerable, whether physically or emotionally, and to treat one another with generosity and respect.”

The University previously took a number of steps to reduce risk to affiliates, including launching a dedicated coronavirus website and cancelling Visitas, the visiting weekend for the Class of 2024. It remains unclear how the outbreak will affect other spring events like alumni reunions, Class Day, and Commencement exercises.

CLASS OF 2020

STAFF

People signed banners at a 2013 Boston Common vigil for the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings. MAGDALENA KALA — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Former Harvard President Drew Gilpin Faust. ROBERT F. WORLEY — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Business and Education

The hushed whispers and the shaking of heads went on at a faster pace last week when newspapers throughout the country reported President Pusey’s “Attack on business” speech at Brown University. To many, he seemed to be biting the hand that holds the spoon, for business contributions have become the lifeblood of private education. The philanthropist-million-aires who once endowed colleges belong to a bygone age; state aid, with its danger of state control, is unacceptable. Contributions from industry seem to be the only answer to soaring educational costs. But fears that Mr. Pusey was repudiating this aid arise from a misreading of his message. Far from attacking business support, he was acknowledging the universities’ dependence on it. Rather than expressing what had better been left unsaid, he was making a necessary and timely statement of first principles.

Noting the industry’s reliance on education for its top personnel, he deplored the assumption that edu-

cation is but an instrument for financial success. Calling attention to the increasing dependence by universities on “government and business for the sustenance they must have to keep alive,” he warned, nevertheless, that educational institutions must transcend their environment so that they may be critics of it. Industry, he held, should not attempt to exert control over educational policies, no matter what its financial contribution.

Such remarks, even though they may be misunderstood by some, were needed from an educational spokesman of Mr. Pusey’s stature. Although such warnings have often been used in reference to the government, they need to be extended to industry’s role in education, where there is equal danger of outside control. Industry is showing ever-increasing concern with educational problems at a time when private education’s resources are dwindling. Whereas endowment provided as much as 25 percent of private institutions’ income before the war, both inflation and increased operating expenses have reduced its contributions to approximately 12 percent today. At the

same time, business has reevaluated its attitude toward private education. Previously its gifts consisted largely in specific grants for research and scholarships in certain areas. These expenses could be justified in stockholders’ eyes as necessary for technical manpower and information. Industry’s own figures, however, have convinced it that it must undertake a policy of unrestricted donations. Studies by the Chamber of Commerce indicate a direct correlation between a community’s educational level and its buying power. Investigations into executive backgrounds show that over 80 percent come from private colleges. In the last few months. U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Electric, and other concerns have set up many new financial arrangements and foundations. These companies have offered to do such things as matching contributions of alumni employees to their alma maters in unrestricted funds.

This increased interest in education may be the financial salvation of the universities. Nevertheless, underlying much of it, is the assumption that the general education provided by the independent liberal

arts university is only a means to industry’s financial well-being. There is a latent danger in this assumption, as Mr. Pusey has recognized, that business will begin to exert control over university policies. Such attempts are not unknown; often in the past wealthy alumni have attempted to mold educational policy. With greater university dependence today on corporation gifts, the threat of similar attempts grows. Already business is exerting an unexpressed, but very real pressure on colleges. Mr. Pusey in his annual report last month deplored the decrease in students majoring in the humanities. Yet at Yale last year only 16 manufacturers out of 117 who interviewed graduating seniors were willing to consider humanistic concentrators for jobs. Many students are being forced into the sciences in order to earn a living. With such pressures already being put on education, a statement such as Mr Pusey’s was needed. It is a warning to the private college or university not to sell its soul to business, and an admonition to industry to pay its way without expecting to formulate university policy in return.

The newcomer to the University very quickly notices three things: the only people who say hello to other people are tourists; as many undergraduates spend fall Saturday afternoons in their rooms or in libraries as in the stadium; and some of Harvard’s biggest academic names schedule their office hours in out of the way places at inconvenient times. The University immediately seems like a very cold and hostile place, and superficially it is. The administration cares little whether an individual student sinks or swims, so long as the admissions people keep bringing in high enough a percentage of swimmers each year. Because of this seem -

ing official apathy, the new freshman finds it perilously easy to sleep in a huge lecture hall when he is only one of 400, or even to stay at home and sleep more comfortably. One can easily spend four years in Cambridge without meeting a faculty member of higher rank than a teaching fellow. And it is possible to make a gentleman’s C with little or no work and have the only permanent trace of one’s presence here a series of impressions on an IBM card.

This spirit of live and let live extends through every aspect of undergraduate life. There are no big men on campus, only a host of little big men. The quest for fame reaches an early, flickering peak when 50 freshmen of whom no one but a few old-school friends have ever heard vie for the votes of an apathetic class to make the Union or

Jubilee committees. An astonishingly large percentage of each class cannot tell you who the current football captain is, and at least an equally large percentage do not know the difference between a Junior Fellow and a University Professor. It is easy for a student merely to let himself drift here because of one great distinction that separates the University from the average American institution. Harvard is designed to speed ahead the superior student, not to herd on the average one. There is a tremendous difference between the honors and non-honors programs.

The man who wants expert advice and individual attention to his academic problems can get all he needs if he is willing to work for it. And conversely it is just as easy to be left alone. There is no such thing as school spirit per se.

Civil Rights in Cambridge

f there was one lesson of this summer’s “race riots,” it was that cities must recognize and attack-on a continuing basis--the problems of the Negro ghetto. In Cambridge, a private group, called the Cambridge Civil Rights Committee and headed by James Vorenberg ‘49, professor of Law, has been working for the past year to probe the city’s civil rights problems and find solutions. This group is currently setting up a service to disseminate job information to Negroes; it has handled some complaints of discrimination in city hiring practices, and has worked to in-

crease communication between city officials and the Negro community in Cambridge. Last week, Vorenberg suggested that a committee such as his be given official city sponsorship. Unfortunately, it appears that Vorenberg’s idea may die without even the formality of any official city discussion.

Reasons can be given for not considering Vorenberg’s proposal: Cambridge does not have an acute “problem”; sponsorship may not be vital — or even particularly important — to the Civil Rights Committee’s success; and finally, there is already one city committee, the Civic Unity Committee, to handle civil rights problems. Each of these points can be disputed. For example, although the Civic Unity Committee deals with civ-

il rights problems, it handles only surface problems.

This group will investigate a conflict once it has arisen, but does not seek to solve the underlying causes of the conflict. That is the job Vorenberg is talking about. But to debate individual points is not our purpose. We only urge that the City Council not bury the issue without giving it a fair and objective hearing.

The Council would do well to set up a temporary committee to look into the problems of civil rights in Cambridge and to study Vorenberg’s proposal for a permanent civil rights committee. (Temporary study committees are notoriously used to sweep problems under the rug; they can be effective, however, as the Council so recently demonstrated in investigating the projected NASA research center in Kend-

Attendance at the rare football rallies is often so poor that everybody walks home without even attempting to cheer. The so-called “All-College Weekend” has been abandoned as a miserable flop. Yet when President Pusey replied to Senator McCarthy’s charges that there was hardly a single undergraduate who was not proud of his university and its president. This kind of pride, demonstrated by the faculty in their commendations for the president and the administration, is a clue to the real spirit that is Harvard, a spirit that was summed up by the philosopher George Santayana, who near the turn of the century wrote that the undergraduate “does, except when the pressure of fear of the outside world constrains him, only when he finds worth doing for its own sake.”

all Square.) The temporary study committee could give the Council an accurate picture of the current difficulties of the Negro communities. Some Councillors seem to believe that Cambridge has no substantial problem. Even if this view were proved correct, it is presently dangerous because it is based on ignorance. In the light of updated information, Vorenberg’s proposal could be studied seriously and objectively.

Although the City Council is often overshadowed by the presence of Harvard and M.I.T., it does a remarkably effective job of governing. With the problem of civil rights, it has the opportunity to take the initiative in a field where most American cities have been content to do nothing.

JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

FEBRUARY 8, 1965

A Parting Shot

BY RICHARD COTTON

During the past year the Harvard Faculty finally turned its attention to undergraduate education. But like a writer returning to a 20-year-old manuscript, the Faculty found it had forgotten the central issues and could only dimly recall the proper approach to the subject.

Not one original educational idea has emerged from the current debate. The goals or proper content of a College education have not been discussed. The Faculty has not decided nor even considered whether there is any knowledge or experience that a college education ought to include. How despite this the Faculty can still debate what requirements to impose on undergraduates remains a mystery.

The sterility of the Doty debate is particularly unfortunate since an overhaul of the education offered in the College is long overdue. As a start, the lecture system ought to be curtailed as quickly as possible. The trend of the past few years toward small-group teaching is a good one, and it ought to be encouraged.

Exams Worthless

Economic considerations will help maintain the lecture system, but no excuse remains for retaining the present examination system. As an educational device, the exam is worthless. A long term

OCTOBER 7, 1969

War Votes

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

This afternoon the Faculty will be asked to consider two resolutions relating to the war in Vietnam. The Faculty should pass both resolutions and give its support to efforts at ending an intolerable war.

The most serious objection to approval of the resolutions concerns the propriety of the Faculty’s voting on political motions. Both resolutions, of course, are avowedly political. One asks that the Faculty affirm “its support of the October 15 day of protest against the War in Vietnam” — the so called Vietnam Moratorium: the other requests that the Faculty formally call for “the immediate withdrawal of U. S. troops” as the most reasonable way to end the Vietnam conflict. Most people would agree that under normal circumstances it would be undesirable for the Faculty, as a body of scholars gathered for the purpose of teaching, to express its opinion on political matters which have no direct relation to its academic functions. But these are not normal circumstances, and normal procedures and inhibitions are not appropriate.

The Vietnam war, with its legacy of a decade of senseless death and suffering, has created a unique situation, one in which conscience demands that individuals and groups use every possible opportunity to press for its immediate cessation. Because the circumstances are unique, the Faculty’s decision to consider political questions today would not set a precedent for future votes on more mundane issues. But because the war is so abhorrent, the Faculty cannot fail to consider these two resolutions in formal session.

Though the substance of the resolutions will not satisfy all members of the Faculty, the motions should be acceptable to the great majority. Some Faculty members fear that a vote supporting the Moratorium would trespass on the right of students who want to attend classes. But the

paper, or several shorter papers, would ensure learning far more effectively and might encourage original thinking. If a policing mechanism is desired, short quizzes are far more efficient than a three hour exam. A year ago a series of essays on the examination system by faculty members was published in a short booklet. But no legislation or further discussion is presently planned by the Administration.

Tutorial-for-all, the freshman seminar program, and Independent Study are all welcome departures from the lecture-exam routine of rote learning. But all these programs were put into effect more than five years ago. If they are successful — and student response indicates they are — why hasn’t the Faculty expanded them? Why are some departments cutting back their tutorial programs?

Teaching Inferior

There are signs of growing concern within the Administration over the inferior quality of teaching, a chronic undergraduate complaint. By 1966, the new teaching fellowships instituted by Dean Ford last year should begin to improve the quality of section men. Unfortunately, high scholarship does not always bear the fruit of good teaching as senior Faculty members prove time and again.

On the other hand, teaching and scholarship are not incompatible. If departments would sim-

resolution now before the Faculty would do no such thing. No Faculty member would be committed by his vote to cancelling his class. On the other hand, the Faculty would have given its support to a peaceful demonstration of disgust at current government policies on the war. Whether or not the resolution passes, it is the duty of Faculty members who oppose the war to cancel classes on October 15. The Moratorium can be effective in mobilizing public pressure only if huge numbers of people observe it. Instructors can plan additional evening or Saturday classes with those who oppose taking the day off.

The resolution asking that the U. S. withdraw its troops poses greater problem than the Moratorium resolution; making a tactical recommendation on how to end the war is a more difficult and complex question than making a statement of opposition in principle to the conflict. Nevertheless, it should be plain that unilateral withdrawal is no longer a radical peace proposal and has become instead the only reasonable way to end the war quickly. All the theories which informed our intervention- “communist aggression,” “the domino theory” and “containment”have been officially abandoned, but the killing continues. Our “prestige” and our Presidents’ sense of history do not justify the loss of hundreds of lives each week, and the support of a corrupt and repressive Saigon regime.

It is quite likely that neither resolution will have any effect on the U. S. policy in Vietnam, even if passed unanimously. The Nixon administration has heard peace suggestions from many prestigious quarters and has been no more responsive than its predecessor. The resolution on the Vietnam Moratorium, if approved, cannot be any more influential than the Moratorium itself, and the Moratorium has crucial flaws. Its platform has been poorly-defined, its turnout will be difficult to estimate, and it can be easily dismissed or ignored by the administration.

But it is the fall of 1969, and there are not many forms of non-violent protest left. The Faculty can’t afford to let these slip by.

The Right Sacrifices

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL

The feeling in America today, the inarticulate upwelling of the nation’s collective consciousness, is that the country is “in trouble.” Fear fills the minds of Americans, from the people who can’t feed their families, to the elderly who wonder what will heat their homes next window, to the young men and women who expect to fight in whatever war looms ahead, to the minorities and the poor with no future except more of the same. So far, this fear has no object, but hovers ominously in the streets like a waiting thundercloud.

Why this national angst? The commonplace explanations — that at home Americans have given up on their government’s ability to make life better for them, and abroad they see their nation humiliated in a world they can no longer control — just aren’t enough. Political cynicism in America goes back at least as far as Ben Franklin, and American international omnipotence was always more the offspring of wishful thinking than of cold reality.

The fear in America today springs rather from a sense that the American lifestyle may have to change, a sense clumsily fostered by our national leaders. Despite the stubborn persistence of poverty in some groups and areas and new troubles caused by exorbitant inflation, life in the United States today is comfortable and gratifying for most of its citizens. When President Carter or his economic-policy underlings tell them they will have to give up some of their comforts, the first response is a reflexive “no!” that echoes out of the history of rugged American individualism. Only thereafter does the all-important “why?” appear in people’s minds and on their lips. The national leadership had better answer this “why?” before it repeats its request for people to reduce their standard of living. Sacrifice is an emotional thing--people won’t do it unless their hearts are in it and they can see everyone is sharing the burden. Drivers won’t want to pay huge gas taxes when they read about the obscene end-ofyear oil company profit figures that helped double the price of gas in the first place. The poor will hardly understand the need for them to sacrifice the programs that keep them above the poverty

ply add the requirement of teaching ability to their present standards of scholarship, the result would be a faculty of greater pedagogical skill without any loss in eminence. The Law School insists on high teaching standards, and few would question the academic qualifications of that faculty.

Education for Some

Even the staunchest defenders of the present system do not claim that every undergraduate receives a good education. They insist, however, that good education is available to any student who is willing to pursue it. Their argument assumes, however, that only some undergraduates will desire a good education.

But if the entire enrollment in a lecture course were to appear during a professor’s one or two office hours per week, Harvard’s system would collapse. What is perhaps the ultimate indictment — not of the Faculty but of the Harvard student body — is that the system does work, that it has not collapsed.

The mechanical reforms have been clearly needed for some time. The Faculty’s failure to discuss them and act quickly is inexplicable. But where it has chosen to discuss, the Faculty has only disappointed.

The Doty committee report is a singularly unexciting document. In evaluating the Gen Ed program, the core of the College education, the Committee turned to administrative detail. It set the

OCTOBER 9, 1969

number of required courses at six and a half because that was the number presently required. The Committee proposed a two part division of courses, not for any substantive reason, but for administrative convenience.

Rethinking Needed

What was needed was a rethinking of the role of the College specifically in terms of the content and mechanics of education, and it is still needed. Where this academic thought will come from is not clear: there has been virtually none for the last five years.

Apparently the most important source of new ideas must now be the Faculty itself. President Conant, from the end of the Second World War on, and President Pusey, have had to devote themselves to raising money, planning new construction, and strengthening, one by one, each graduate school. While the ultimate responsibility for the development of the College must lie with the President, more immediate policy planning rests with the Dean of Faculty and with the Faculty itself. Perhaps in the coming Doty debate, the Faculty will consider the reforms necessary to restore Harvard as a leading educational institution, as well as a leading center of scholarship.

Vietnam Morass

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL

Under almost any circumstances, a formal vote by the Harvard Faculty against the Vietnam war would offer some help to anti-war efforts. And-as the press coverage yesterday and today has shown-the votes at Tuesday’s Faculty meeting did attract some national interest. President Nixon may say he doesn’t care, but he and the rest of the newspaper-reading public now know that a prestigious group has taken a public stand. Unfortunately, the sloppy manner in which the Faculty handled the vote on the anti-war resolution guaranteed that its “public stand” would have the minimum effect. And its defeat of the Mendelsohn resolution on the Vietnam Moratorium was an inexcusable rejection of a relatively non-controversial motion. From the start, the lines that split the Faculty were clear: while most members were personally ready to oppose the war, a large group of them feared the damage a “political” vote might do to the Faculty’s academic integrity. Their fears were not well-grounded: if a Faculty member can admit there are some conceivable circumstances that might justify a step away from neutrality, then he should see that the Vietnam War calls for such a step.

But even granting those fears were sincere, the Faculty’s handling of the motion on the Vietnam Moratorium is difficult to understand. The Moratorium resolution may have seemed tainted with po-

litical content, but the Moratorium itself has gained such widespread support that a mere expression of “support” could hardly have been viewed as a precedent. If the Boston City Council finds this protest worthy of endorsement, and three local universities have cancelled classes to observe it, then the Faculty should have been able to suspend its long-guarded neutrality.

As it is, the amended motion says in essence, nothing. Anyone who can read a newspaper “recognizes that October 15 is a day of protest,” and Faculty members already had the right to call off their classes without getting any “re-affirmation” from an amended motion. The series of votes on the anti-war resolution showed mainly how easily the Faculty can lose its legislative way. For some unexplained reason, the 268 votes that joined to amend the Moratorium resolution couldn’t get together to call a recess-the obvious strategy for avoiding a formal vote. And when they finally faced a vote, the opponents seemed to have no ready plan for voting or abstaining. If those who opposed the resolution were sincere in their protestation that they wanted to make the “most effective” statement against the war, they might have arranged some better way of putting themselves on private record once the formal vote was past. As it was, the slapstick convocation only reinforced the sense of disorder and confusion. If the turbulent meetings of the last nine months have shown nothing else, they have proved how much the Faculty needs sweeping legislative reform.

line when they see their government spend $60 billion on a giant shell-game for its missiles. Families will miss the logic of why they have to earn less and borrow nothing as the only cure for aching inflation, when they realize this policy aims to placate only the business community, lately the biggest beneficiary of the federal government. The unemployed will miss the point of an economic policy that deliberately deprives them of jobs for the sake of the few tenths of a percentage point their misery might lower the inflation rate. Young people will not make the biggest sacrifice of all if the war they’re asked to fight protects something as sacrificeable as oil profits and not the national interest at all. There are sacrifices Americans should make, and probably would if the government stopped relying on the fiction of the free market and took decisive action. The 12-mile-a-gallon Cadillac ought to go the way of the grass-eating brontosaurus, and government regulation should drive it to extinction if natural selection doesn’t. Immediate price controls and rationing of gasoline would instantly force a reduction in oil consumption and dependence on imports--and this is a sacrifice

Americans have long been willing to make, but this administration has timidly avoided. There are sacrifices aplenty to be made everywhere in society--by the profiteers in the weapons industry, by the bankers charging never-before-contemplated interest rates, by the energy companies growing rich off the price-rises of the oil cartel and then editorializing about the evils of regulation, asking for the freedom to make even more. The government should ask them to sacrifice at least as much as the average American; they can afford much, much more. Unless government takes the steps today to channel the fears of Americans towards the right sacrifices--and insures that all segments of society chip in--we will end up making the wrong ones for decades to come. We will fight wars to defend a national interest determined in a few corporate boardrooms. We will continue to polarize our society economically so that a handful maintain their standard of consumption while many sink into an abyss of hopeless misery. Worst of all, as we struggle to save the least desirable qualities of the American way of life, we will lose hold of its most valuable freedoms.

–Richard Cotton ‘65, a Crimson Editor, is in Leverett House.

DECADES OF DIALOGUE

Harvard in Washington: A Timeline

with their

and Congressmen for an immediate end to the

in

During the day, they met with nearly 40 Senators and more than 100 Congressmen, and urged them to vote for upcoming anti-war motions in Congress, including the McGovern-Hatfield amendment to cut off all funds for the war except for those needed to withdraw American troops. The lobbying effort-organized by Harvard Peace Action Strike-included 800 students from the College and Radcliffe, 150 law students, 200 other graduate students, and some 30 Faculty members. Those lobbying also collected information on their representatives’ positions on the war, for use in anti-war organizing campaigns this summer and fall.

In a defiant reply to charges made last week by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, President Pusey yesterday declared that Harvard is “absolutely, unalterably and finally opposed to Communism” and that, so far as he knows, there are no communists on the Harvard faculty.

Pusey’s statements were made at an early morning press conference at which he released the text of a telegram he received from the Wisconsin senator over the weekend and his answer which was sent out yesterday morning.

The senator’s telegram was dispatched last week after Professor Wendell H. Furry, associate professor of Physics, had appeared before McCarthy’s committee. It demanded that Pusey tell him “what, if any, action the University intends to take in Furry’s case and what your attitude generally is toward retaining teachers at Harvard who refused to state whether they are communists on the ground that the truth would incriminate them.”

President Bok yesterday criticized the proposed cuts in federal support for education, which have prompted some Harvard officials and their representatives in Washington to accuse the Reagan administration of playing a dangerous game with the future of the country’s academic community.

Reagan’s plans “represent a serious combination of steps that could affect the University adversely.” Bok said. “Everybody has to participate in cutting spending, but universities should not suffer as they will if these measures go through,” he added.

Bok and other Harvard officials have

BY GADY A. EPSTEIN

a

In the world of American higher education, there is a hierarchy, and Harvard is undoubtedly at the top. But along with the privilege of attracting the best students and faculty in the world comes the re

sponsibility of serving as a role model for other institutions of higher learning. For example, whenever a national movement threatens higher education, the world looks toward Cambridge for guidance.

This year, a number of glances have been directed toward Harvard Square--and

DANIEL J. HEMEL

JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ

A History of Protest

Timeline

HARVARD AS TARGET HARVARD AS PLATFORM

Apr. 26, 1961

STUDENTS PROTEST REPLACEMENT OF LATIN DIPLOMAS

Students protested Harvard’s decision to replace Latin diplomas with English, staging a three-day demonstration in defense of University tradition.

Apr. 9, 1969

STUDENTS OCCUPY UNIVERSITY HALL OVER ROTC AND BLACK STUDIES

Roughly 300 students, led by SDS, occupied University Hall to demand the abolition of ROTC and the creation of an Afro-American Studies department. Police removed the protestors the next day, arresting over 100 and prompting a three-day student strike.

Apr. 6, 1992

STUDENTS STAGE OVERNIGHT SIT-IN OUTSIDE

LAW SCHOOL DEAN’S OFFICE

Nine members of the Coalition for Civil Rights began an overnight sit-in outside the Law School dean’s office, calling for improved recruitment of women and minority faculty.

Apr. 18, 2001

LIVING WAGE CAMPAIGN SPARKS SIT-IN AT MASS HALL

Members of the Progressive Student Labor Movement launched a 21-day sit-in at Massachusetts Hall, demanding a living wage for Harvard’s lowest-paid workers. Hundreds rallied in support daily.

Nov. 7, 1966

STUDENTS CONFRONT DEFENSE SECRETARY MCNAMARA OVER VIETNAM

Roughly 800 students surrounded Defense Secretary Robert McNamara’s car during a campus visit, demanding accountability for U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Apr. 16, 1986

SHANTYTOWN ERECTED IN HARVARD YARD TO DEMAND DIVESTMENT

Students built a shantytown in Harvard Yard to pressure the university to divest from companies operating under South Africa’s apartheid regime. The protest drew national attention.

Nov. 1, 1997

PROTESTERS RALLY AGAINST CHINESE PRESIDENT JIANG ZEMIN

Thousands protested Chinese President Jiang Zemin’s visit, condemning China’s human rights record, including the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

Mar. 20, 2003

HARVARD COMMUNITY RALLIES AGAINST IRAQ WAR

Over 1,000 students, faculty, and staff gathered in Harvard Yard to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, calling for peace and criticizing military intervention.

Nov. 9, 2011

OCCUPY HARVARD MOVEMENT BEGINS IN YARD

Students launched the Occupy Harvard movement with an encampment in the Yard, challenging income inequality and the university’s financial practices. Harvard locked the gates in response.

Dec. 5, 2014

BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTERS HOLD ‘DIE-IN’ IN HARVARD YARD

Hundreds staged a silent “die-in” in Harvard Yard to protest police killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, echoing national Black Lives Matter actions.

Dec. 4, 2015

LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS DEMAND ACTION ON RACISM

Harvard Law students responded to racist vandalism and broader equity concerns by issuing demands for curriculum reform and administrative accountability.

Nov. 23, 2019

STUDENTS DISRUPT HARVARD-YALE GAME OVER FOSSIL

FUEL INVESTMENTS

Student activists disrupted the Harvard-Yale football game at halftime, calling for fossil fuel divestment. The protest delayed the game for nearly an hour.

Jan. 24, 2023

STUDENTS PROTEST RETURN OF PROFESSOR COMAROFF AFTER HARASSMENT ALLEGATIONS

Students walked out of Professor John Comaroff’s class to protest his reinstatement after harassment allegations, demanding stronger institutional safeguards.

Apr. 24, 2024

STUDENTS LAUNCH ENCAMPMENT IN HARVARD YARD OVER GAZA WAR

More than 1,000 students set up a 20-day encampment in Harvard Yard demanding divestment from companies tied to Israel’s actions in Gaza. The protest was followed by a mass walkout during Commencement after 13 students were barred from graduating.

Leave your mark on the Harvard community— and the world

Establish a planned gift today and make an impact for generations to come

Contact Harvard Gift Planning to learn how you can support Harvard’s research and teaching mission by:

• Naming your favorite Harvard School or initiative in your estate plans

• Designating Harvard as the beneficiary of a retirement account, life insurance policy, or other financial account

• Contributing complex assets such as appreciated securities, cryptocurrency, or property

• Funding an annuity or trust to secure income during retirement

• Giving from your IRA or donor advised fund

Help fuel Harvard’s future while meeting your own financial goals.

Contact our team at giftplanning@harvard.edu, visit alumni.harvard.edu/legacy, or scan the QR code to start your gift planning conversation today.