Read more about Harvard’s actions and commitments on our Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias website

The post Statement on the March 20 lawsuit appeared first on Media Relations.

The post Statement on the government’s action impacting international student enrollment appeared first on Media Relations.

Correspondence:

Dear [Names of students who attended the meeting],

The conversation with you recently was one among several I had with groups of students and others about the endowment. I appreciated the thoughtful questions and concerns you expressed, along with those that came up in the other discussions, and that they were conveyed in a spirit of candor and respect.

Our conversation explored how the endowment is invested through external managers, how the guidance provided by the Corporation Committee on Shareholder Responsibility informs those managers, and how HMC, which invests Harvard’s endowment, advances its efforts to seek the financial returns needed to advance our academic mission, including funding financial aid, teaching, and research.

Although divestment was not intended to be a topic for the meeting, I confirmed Harvard’s consistent position that it has no intention of “divesting from Israel.” Late in our meeting you presented an alternative proposal. When I reviewed it, I found that its implications are clear. Although it references a broader framework, in practice it does not differ substantially from prior demands: the proposal declares that Israel is engaged in both apartheid and genocide, that its territorial holdings are illegal, and th����ר�� Management Company should undertake a process to reduce its investment exposure accordingly. 

Harvard will not use its endowment funds to endorse a contested view on a complex issue that deeply divides our community.  The reasons for avoiding such an action have been articulated for decades by my predecessors and bear repeating. 

Generations of supporters have directed their philanthropy to Harvard rather than the many other causes they could pursue because they wanted to enable the University to pursue excellence in education and research and to make that excellence more widely available.  That is the fundamental purpose of the endowment funds that have resulted from their generosity.  And that is why the investment strategy is designed to support the academic mission, not to serve as a direct instrument of social or political change. 

Rigorous and serious debate is crucial to advancing, testing, and disseminating knowledge. Consequently, maintaining an atmosphere open to such debate is an imperative for Harvard as an academic institution. Using the endowment as an instrument to declare an institutional position on a highly complex international conflict, about which members of our community—including other students we met with—disagree vociferously and passionately, would undermine that fundamental goal. It would jeopardize the University’s stature as an impartial source of knowledge. It would inhibit the robust discussion and debate that is an integral feature of university life. It would risk the University’s independence and capacity to safeguard academic freedom, by encouraging perceptions of the institution as a political actor rather than a learning community dedicated to open inquiry and vigorous exchange among competing points of view. 

Marshaling the University’s academic resources is the most effective way for Harvard to serve society and address important global challenges. The University convenes numerous programs at various centers and institutes across the University to encourage constructive expression of diverse perspectives, and rigorous scholarship on complex issues of public significance. These include the Intellectual Vitality initiatives undertaken by Harvard College, the Rappaport Forum at the Harvard Law School, the civil discourse activities hosted by the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, the upcoming Middle East series hosted by the Harvard Radcliffe Institute, and the Middle East Initiative hosted by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School among others.  

We make the most of Harvard’s distinctive capabilities to help resolve the world’s most vexing challenges by pursuing opportunities for intellectual engagement, not by curtailing HMC’s investment options.

Thank you for explaining your position and for discussing your views with us in such a constructive manner.

Sincerely,

Alan M. Garber
President
Harvard University

The post Oct. 3, 2024, Correspondence from President Alan M. Garber appeared first on Media Relations.

• The American flag was not flying at University Hall at the time.
• University procedures are that the American flag is raised on University Hall each Monday through Friday at 7am and lowered at 4pm for proper storage.

The post Flag raised by protesters over University Hall  appeared first on Media Relations.

Background Points:

• The American flag was not flying on University Hall at the time the other flags were raised.
• University procedures are that the American flag is raised on University Hall each Monday through Friday at 7am and lowered at 4pm for proper storage.

The post Harvard University Statement Apr. 27 appeared first on Media Relations.

The safety and wellbeing of members of our community continues to be our top priority. In line with that, Harvard has provided community members with resources, including online protection tools, and is committed to providing a safe campus environment. 

The post Harvard University Statement Apr. 8 appeared first on Media Relations.

The post Harvard University Statement Apr. 5 appeared first on Media Relations.

Such despicable messages have no place in the Harvard community. We condemn these posts in the strongest possible terms.

This matter is being reviewed by the University and is being referred to the Harvard College Administrative Board, which is responsible for the application and enforcement of undergraduate academic regulations and social conduct.

Harvard rejects antisemitism in all of its forms. We are determined to combat any such hate and bias in our community.

The post Harvard University Statement Feb. 19 appeared first on Media Relations.

The post Harvard University Statement Nov. 14 appeared first on Media Relations.

Two years ago, we formed a Student Advisory Committee, with the goal of seeking input on educational initiatives and resources addressing sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct. My hope, with the formation of this Committee, was that we would hear honest perspectives from our students on how we could better serve the Harvard community.  Earlier this week, the Committee convened and courageously raised their concerns regarding the impact of a statement I issued last week regarding the University’s processes and practices, specifically regarding the confidentiality of material provided during the course of investigations conducted by the Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR). 

At the time, Office for Gender Equity (OGE) staff, as well as many others across the University, were hearing from community members about their concerns about the confidential nature of their health and mental health records. These concerns included some indicating their hesitancy to seek out resources, including counseling resources. My intention was to assure our community members that they could safely continue to access community resources.

I’ve since learned, however, that my statement has contributed to further concerns around trust and for that I want to apologize.

I am grateful for the members of OGE’s Student Advisory Committee for bringing these concerns forward and for the important discussions the committee members have had with OGE staff regarding this, and other matters intended to better meet the needs of our community. This sincere and thoughtful conversation is exactly why OGE created the Student Advisory Committee. 

To the broader Harvard community, please know that I remain committed to improving upon the resources and supports provided to individuals impacted by sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct. I look forward to continued engagement with our community, including the thoughtful work of our Advisory Committee.  It is a long and difficult road to change culture and climate, yet I remain confident that by working together we can, together, effect change. 

Feb. 10, 2022 – Statement from University spokesperson:

Harvard University acknowledged the complaints made by these three students regarding Professor John Comaroff, which is why thorough reviews were conducted by Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS). The reviews concluded that Professor Comaroff engaged in verbal conduct that violated the FAS Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Policy and the FAS Professional Conduct Policy. Sanctions for that conduct were issued by the FAS on January 20, 2022 and included, among other things, an unpaid administrative leave for the spring semester and limiting Professor Comaroff’s teaching and advising activities through at least the 2022-23 academic year.

Harvard University disputes the allegations of the lawsuit brought by Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP, which are in no way a fair or accurate representation of the thoughtful steps taken by the University in response to concerns that were brought forward, the thorough reviews conducted, and the results of those reviews.

Feb. 10, 2022 – Statement from Nicole Merhill, Director, Office for Gender Equity and the University’s Title IX Coordinator:

As the Director of the Office for Gender Equity and the University’s Title IX Coordinator, I am deeply familiar with the University’s processes and practices, and the University’s commitment to adhering to our Title IX processes, including those related to the confidentiality of material provided during investigations. Representations that do not describe fairly or accurately the University’s processes with regard to obtaining and maintaining material during an investigatory process are extremely troubling to me because they may have a potential chilling effect on our community members’ confidence in the investigatory process and their ability to access counseling and other resources.

Background:

• Harvard’s Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) does not contact a party’s medical care provider except when a party has indicated that the provider has relevant information that the party wants ODR to consider.  In that situation, ODR receives information from that care provider only with the party’s consent. We scrupulously follow this practice. 

• HIPAA privacy obligations apply to medical care providers, not the ODR. ODR relies on medical care providers to obtain the necessary HIPAA-compliant authorizations for the release of medical information to ODR.  Harvard of course is concerned with treating medical information with appropriate confidentiality, sensitivity, and care. When the ODR obtains such information it is disclosed as part of the review process only with the knowledge of the affected party.

• Parties to an ODR process are informed that all documents, including medical records (as described above), obtained by ODR will be shared with both parties to the investigation (see below).   A party may not supply information of any kind to be considered in the process if it cannot be shared with an opposing party.

• Parties are notified of this requirement, that information will be shared, during interviews and in writing.  See Question 25 in . Excerpted here:

• “Will both parties have access to the materials that ODR uses in reaching its conclusions?
  
  Yes. During the course of the investigation, both the complainant and the respondent will have the opportunity to respond to all information used by the Investigative Team in reaching its conclusions. They will also have the opportunity to provide the Investigative Team with any additional information that they have. This information, like other information received from the complainant and respondent during the investigatory process, will be shared with the other. In addition, each party will have the opportunity to review and comment on the draft investigative report, and the Investigative Team will evaluate the comments before issuing a final report.”

• Throughout the process, draft reports, which are also shared with both sides, identify documents ODR has reviewed.  

• If either party has documents that it does not wish the other party to see, ODR will not require a party to submit those documents.  Rather, ODR will simply not obtain or consider those documents. 

The post Harvard Statements appeared first on Media Relations.