By Karen Yang
Governance & Society
“Known formally as the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Harvard Corporation is the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere,” reads the Harvard Corporation website. Up until 14 years ago, the Corporation's history had been largely stagnant and had remained notoriously opaque in its day-to-day activities. Not until much more recently, in the 2023 academic year, has there been more discussion about what really goes on behind the scenes of one of the most famous universities in the world.
Origins in 1650
The 1650 Harvard Charter created the Corporation, which originally consisted of 7 people - “a President, five Fellows, and a Treasurer or Bursar.” Its original powers were to “choose such officers and servants for the College… to make from time to time such orders and by-laws for the better ordering and carrying on the work of the College as they shall think fit.” The Board of Overseers, consisting of 30 members elected by alumni, as well as the president and the treasurer, had been previously established in 1642, by the Great and General Court of Massachusetts.
The charter discussed the Corporation’s powers, which revolved around “manag[ing] College's finances, properties, and donations, act[ing] as a legal entity in courts of law, select[ing] ‘officers and servants,’ establish[ing] a College seal, and create orders and bylaws for the College, with the approval of the Board of Overseers.”
But most distinctly, the Corporation’s duty was to elect a President and a Treasurer. In fact, later Corporation member D. Ronald Daniel would describe that “the only decision that’s obvious [to the public] that resides in the Corporation is the selection of the president.”
What else stood out was the fact that the Corporation “shall forever hereafter in name and fact be one body politic and corporate in law to all intents and purposes and shall have perpetual succession.” In that sentence also lies the most fundamental characteristic of the Corporation - the fact that it is self-perpetuating without democratic elections.
An Overview of the Corporation's role
Despite public misconceptions, the Corporation is not involved in day-to-day affairs. Based on a 2006 interview with former Corporation members Henry Rosovsky (who served from 1985 to 1997) and D. Ronald Daniel (1989 to 2004) with professors Jay W. Lorsch and Richard P. Chait, one can deduce that by tradition, by history, the President and Fellows have delegated some of their powers to the people who work below them. The most important thing they delegate… is educational policy. The faculties are in charge of degree requirements, admissions, curriculum, and the like.” In fact, when choosing the deans of various schools (like the Graduate School of Education, and Business School), Daniel said - “but certainly they’re kept informed. I don’t think they’re asked to vote. In a sense, they’re implicitly asked to endorse the selection.”
As for disagreements, conversation, and discussion seems to be the way forward. Rosovsky has said, “‘I think if the Corporation says no to the president on a decision of any consequence, that’s an invitation for the president to resign.” Indeed, the small board is still very much concentrated on what the president looks to do. When speaking about how the corporation works, who the president is is of utmost importance. the president essentially “sets the agenda.” Instead, the Fellows may be thought of as the “The most intimate advisers of the president” or a sounding board. However, the Corporations’ specific job duties have remained murky throughout time despite calls for change.
Stagnation and Changes
It was only during the Vietnam-era upheavals at the University, the mid-20th century, that Corporation members took on public conversations. During that time, student protests occupied University Hall, and “studies of Harvard governance were undertaken and various proposals for change circulated. New personnel in Massachusetts Hall, the appointment of academics to the Corporation, and an expanded central administrative staff in the presidency of Derek Bok ensued but did not change the fundamental governance structure.”
That change would not come for another sixty years. In 2009, a review of the Corporation began. The “pressure to reform had been building for several years and had both internal and external origins before culminating in 2008.” The culprit was the 2008 recession, which led to calls “for some Corporation members to resign in the wake of the nearly 30 percent decline in the endowment’s value during the financial crisis.”
Soon after, in 2009, a review of the Corporation took place, and “the first changes to the Corporation’s structure since 1650 were implemented in 2010.” These include an expansion of the number of Fellows (from 7 to 13), the establishment of terms of service for Fellows, and the creation of standing committees.” The rationale for this dramatic change came from the Corporation’s belief that “an enlargement will substantially expand the Corporation’s collective capacity.” The Corporation also established limited terms of 6 years, with the potential for renewal, for all members other than the president. Likewise, it would form new committees, including a Committee on Finance, a Committee on Facilities and Capital Planning, and more, with each committee enlisting the “service of others with especially helpful professional expertise, drawn from among accomplished alumni, including current or former Overseers, and others.” In other words, the Corporation would expand the voices present in the governance premise.
Most notably, the Corporation wanted to “engage more with a broader range of University constituents, in both formal and informal settings, and keep the community informed about the essence of the Corporation’s work.” It also promised to pursue “various ways to report to the community at least four times a year on key aspects of the Corporation and its work.”
Has it Been Enough? A Review of the 2010 Changes
Since its inception, the Corporation has been shrouded in mystery. Undoubtedly, over the course of its history, Harvard has become sprawling and decentralized, requiring a larger team of leaders. However, “even after these reforms, the Corporation remains the smallest board among its peer institutions. Private colleges and universities typically have boards composed of 25 to 60 members.” Indeed, Princeton University has a Board of Trustees “that consists of no fewer than 23 and no more than 40 members” – potentially more than triple the size of Harvard’s, while retaining a fraction of the students. Were these reforms enough to create an environment of extended transparency and accomplish what it has set out to do?
Many have felt that the change has not been enough. When describing Marc L. Goodheart, a top adviser to Harvard's secretive governing boards, in 2024, Jeffrey S. Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, who worked with Goodheart, puzzled over this exact question. “Flier said that the scope of Goodheart’s influence within Harvard governance remained unclear to him. ‘I didn’t know whether he was purely a scheduling functionary or someone deeply important to the conduct of the Corporation,’ he said. ‘It could have been anything in between.’”
That opaqueness also remains when thinking about the checks and balances (or lack thereof) with the Corporation. While the Corporation, responsible for selecting the president, has an ultimate check on “the loss of confidence [it] has in the president.” But what about the check on the Corporation itself? Indeed, Harvard has “no faculty senate; there is no representative alumni organization; or any other body that plays that role.”
Looking Forward & Recommendations
Even in 2006, it was clear that improvements for the Corporation would always need to be centered around fleshing out the roles of the different subsections of the Corporation. “If I were going to make any suggestion about what might improve this delicate system that works, it would be to think more explicitly about the roles of the different parts of the system–not just the Corporation, but also the faculties and the Overseers,” Professor Lorsch said.
To this day, students’ oftentimes only form of communication with the Corporation is through periodic, flowery-worded emails sent to the community broadly. What has remained persistent even through the change is a sense of confusion and even aloofness. To mitigate such feelings of removal – even elitism – the Corporation members can first make themselves more open to conversation with students and other community members - whether that be for interviews with The Crimson or other more frequent communication. More dramatic change – in the form of expanding Harvard’s board and corporation – may also be a viable solution, although highly unlikely due to Harvard’s commitment to being rooted in the past. While a certain sense of secrecy is understood to be needed for operations, it is also fundamental for students and community members to know where the money they are paying to attend Harvard goes. Otherwise, Harvard may truly be playing into the public perception of elitism and secrecy.
Bibliography
Editors of the Harvard Magazine. “Governing Harvard.” 2005.
Edmonds, Colbin. “Who Are the Members of the Harvard Corporation?” The New York Times, Dec. 25,
Harvard Corporation website.
Harvard University Archives Research Guide. “Harvard Presidential Insignia.”
Harvard University Office of the Governing Boards. “Harvard Corporation Governance Review
Committee Report to the University Community,” December 6, 2010. https://news.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/governance-report.pdf
Haidar Emma, Cam Kettles. “Keeper of the Keys’: Meet the Secretary of Harvard’s Secretive Governing
Boards.” The Crimson, February 28, 2024. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/2/28/marc-goodheart-feature/
Princeton University, “Board of Trustees.”
Weinberg, Zoe. “The Corporation’s New Era, Harvard’s governing body seeks specialists while
increasing transparency,” The Crimson.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/26/corporation-corporations-members-reforms/?page=single. May 26, 2011.
Photo: Signe Smith + Megan M. Ross (Harvard Crimson)
Comentários