The Harvard Crimson - Volume CLI, No. 31

THE HARVARD CRIMSON

PENNULTIMATE

The Schools That Feed Harvard

Admin Wanted Harsher Discipline for Activists

Top Harvard officials privately lam-

basted the College and graduate schools’ disciplinary committees for not imposing harsher penalties on students who participated in the pro-Palestine protests that rocked campus earlier this year, according to a congressional report released last month.

Even as Harvard administrators were publicly defending the punishments handed down by administrative boards, members of the University’s senior leadership had grown increasingly frustrated with the boards, which they viewed as ineffective, too autonomous, and overly deferential to student protesters.

The report, which was published by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, includes interviews, text messages, emails, and internal documents collected under subpoena as part of a nearly year-long investigation into campus antisemitism at Harvard.

As early as Nov. 6, 2023, before campus activists staged a 24-hour occupation of University Hall and a 20-day encamp -

ment in Harvard Yard, Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81 criticized the Ad Boards in a meeting of the Corporation — the University’s highest governing body.

Pritzker said she had been told by then-Harvard Law School Dean John F. Manning ’82 that the administrative boards “won’t punish anyone,” according to meeting minutes.

“If you can make a plea to them, they will let you off,” Pritzker added.

“The Ad Boards are the problem,” Garber replied. “The deans don’t control those processes.”

Less than two weeks later, when a small group of pro-Palestine protesters staged an occupation of University Hall, Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana — who chairs the Harvard College Administrative Board — told Garber over text that the students would receive a minimum of probation and could be asked to withdraw.

Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra went even further, telling Khurana over text that she believed “occupying a building equals suspension.”

The College Ad Board, however, did not suspend or place any of the eight un-

dergraduate participants on probation. Instead, they were “admonished because of inappropriate social behavior,” according to disciplinary records submitted by Harvard to the committee.

During a transcribed interview with the committee in August, Pritzker acknowledged that the “uneven enforcement of the rules” has posed a major challenge for University administrators.

“The Corporation finds that unacceptable,” Pritzker said. “It’s not fair. It’s not right. And so it’s something that we have – have been very clear about with the people who need to now rectify this.”

“I don’t think it’s all fixed yet,” she added.

Though the University revised several of its protest and use of space rules, in addition to launching a standardized fact-finding procedure for disciplinary cases over the summer, the actual discipline handed down still remains up to the boards.

According to the committee, that fact has made several top administrators feel powerless to change the University’s disciplinary response to protests. And as Harvard remains at the center of national scrutiny, protest discipline has been treated by many observers as a stand-in for the

University’s response to antisemitism. Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that “antisemitism has no place on our campus, and across the university we have intensified our efforts to listen to, learn from, support, and uplift our Jewish community, affirming their vital place at Harvard.”

“At the same time, the university has taken steps to strengthen and clarify rules for use of campus spaces and disciplinary policies and procedures, as well as engage our community around civil dialogue to bridge divides,” Newton added. “This work is ongoing, and Harvard is fully committed to it and confident we are moving in the right direction.”

The next semester, when pro-Palestine student protesters staged an encampment in Harvard Yard to demand the University divest from Israel, administrators again agonized over how to respond.

While both Khurana and Garber threatened the students with discipline in a series of public statements, they vowed discipline would come later when the students appeared before the Ad Boards. In an attempt to force the group out before then, Garber chose a different strategy:

When Harvard Management Company

CEO N.P “Narv” Narvekar released the University’s annual financial report last month, he announced that the value of Harvard’s endowment grew in value for the first time since fiscal year 2021.

Narvekar’s 9.6 percent return in fiscal year 2024, which ranked third among Ivy+ peers and raised the total value of Harvard’s endowment to $53.2 billion, marked a clear bright spot for the University as the endowments at schools like Yale and Princeton reported returns that just beat inflation.

In the annual financial report, Narvekar touted his strong performance as “encouraging, less for its one-year return than for the trend it continues to reflect.”

But in interviews with financial experts and Harvard affiliates, many expressed concern about the endowment’s long-term performance, which has underperformed compared to other Ivy+

schools and the S&P 500 — an index tracking the stock performance of the 500 largest companies that serves as a common benchmark for investors.

“One should never evaluate endowments based upon yearly return,” W. Bentley MacLeod, a professor of economics at Princeton University, wrote in a statement to The Crimson.

“This is similar to the difference between weather and climate,” he added.

“Getting snow in, say, November does not mean there is no climate change.”

Shortly after Narvekar took over the HMC in 2017, he announced a five-year plan that delivered a sweeping overhaul of HMC, dismantling its traditional internal management structure in favor of external partnerships with hedge funds and private equity firms to boost returns.

But the modifications made to the endowment structure, modeled after Narvekar’s own strategies from his tenure managing Columbia’s endowment — which beat the returns of Harvard back-to-back years — have failed to yield immediate results for the University and

The Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee called for a boycott of travel to Israel on Sunday following the reinstatement of Israel Trek, an annual subsidized trip to Israel over spring break.

The upcoming 2025 trip marks Israel Trek’s return following a one-year hiatus.

The 2024 trek was canceled in March over safety concerns following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and the ongoing war in Gaza.

The boycott is the fourth time in six years that PSC has launched a campaign targeted at dissuading students from traveling to Israel. In 2019, the group circulated a pledge to boycott the Trek, but the trip was ultimately called off due to the Covid-19 pandemic instead.

Executive Director of Harvard Hillel Jason B. Rubenstein ’04 wrote in an emailed statement to The Crimson that the PSC boycott is a result of “fear that allegations of genocide, which enjoy great currency in 02138, may not survive contact with reality 5,000 miles away.”

“The entire purpose of the trip is to deepen your thinking by broadening the set of experiences you can draw on,” Rubenstein wrote. “Opposition to Trek is grounded not so much in suspicion of Trek itself, but in suspicion of your ability to arrive at the truth, or perhaps a fear of your ability to do so.”

But for Eva C. Frazier ’26, a leading organizer with PSC, the Trek represents an effort to whitewash the Israeli government’s human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians.

“Engaging in Israel Trek is becoming part of a propaganda trip that is legitimizing an apartheid state occupation and now an ongoing genocide,” Frazier said. Israel Trek has referenced its affiliation with “diverse perspectives, including high-ranking Jewish, Arab Israeli, and Palestinian officials,” in emails advertising the trip. But PSC members said that they believed students should still boycott the Trek because the planned events on the agenda are insufficient. “You’re not going to be able to view the

GODKIN LECTURE — Senior Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong, left, delivered the 2024 Godkin Lecture at the Harvard Kennedy School on Tuesday.

JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

MILES J. HERSZENHORN — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

ELIAS J. SCHISGALL — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

TRUMP ANNOUNCES INITIAL SLATE OF CABINET, STAFF

Fresh off his decisive victory last week, President-elect Donald Trump wasted no time in announcing a slew of top appointments, beginning with naming his campaign manager, Susan Wiles, as his chief of staff. Trump appointed immigration hawk Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff and nominated Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) as for Secretary of State and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security. Trump also named former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. ’76, a noted vaccine skeptic, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

UNORTHODOX TRUMP CABINET APPOINTEES FACE SENATE SKEPTICISM

But while some of his nominees, including Rubio and Noem, are expected to cruise through the Senate, Trump also named a handful of nominees that will face an uphill battle for confirmation. Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard, a former congresswoman who left the Democratic Party, will face skepticism over her lack of intelligence experience and her comments about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Senators also raised alarms about the nomination of Fox News host Pete Hegseth — a military veteran with little administrative experience — to lead the behemoth Defense Department, and Republican firebrand Matt Gaetz — who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee over sexual misconduct allegations — to lead the Department of Justice. “Gaetz won’t get confirmed,” former GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Wednesday.

MUSK’S INFLUENCE GROWS IN TRUMP WORLD

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose multi-million expenditures help propel Trump to victory, has been playing an outside role in the transition process, the New York Times reported. He has sat in on meetings, given his input on potential nominees and appointees, and even sat in on a call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump named him and another tech scion, former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy ’07, to lead a new “Department of Governmental Efficiency” with the goal of gutting the federal bureaucracy. And on Monday, the Times reported, Musk met with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations with the goal of diffusing tensions between Iran and the United States.

THUNE ELECTED SENATE MAJORITY LEADER

Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) was elected Senate Majority Leader in a secret ballot vote on Wednesday, succeeding longtime power broker Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and beating out Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) for the position. With Thune, the Senate rejected Scott, a longshot who was the favorite of many in Trump’s orbit, in favor of a leader with institutionalist instincts who will defend the chamber’s staunch independence — especially as Trump ratchets up pressure on the body to rubber-stamp his appointees.

What’s Next

Start every week with a preview of what’s on the agenda around Harvard University

Friday 11/15

FIRST YEAR ANNENBERG KITCHEN

TOUR

Annenberg Hall, 11-11:45 a.m.

Are you a freshman curious about the inner workings of your Berg kitchen? Join the Food Literacy Program for to tour the Annenberg Kitchen and learn how Harvard University Dining Services serves 3,000 hungry freshmen every day.

Saturday 11/16

GRADUATE STUDENT DIWALI

CELEBRATION

Lehman Hall, 7-10 p.m.

Come to Lehman Hall for a celebration of Diwali, the Festival of Lights, specifically for Harvard Graduate Students. The event will include arts and crafts, ample Indian food, and a Bollywood Dance Workshop. Open to 21+ only.

Sunday 11/17

INTRODUCTION TO FERMENTATION

80 JFK Street Kitchen, 3-4:30 p.m.

Learn the science and craft behind fermented foods, as well as their health benefits, at this event with Sam Wdow, the Chef de Cuisine at Lowell and Winthrop Houses. Tickets are $3 for students and $6 for non-students, and no prior cooking experience is necessary.

Monday 11/18

HARVARD-YALE STUDENT TICKET PICK-UPS BEGIN

Cambridge Queens Head, 10 a.m.-4 p.m.

Come by the Cambridge Queens Head in the basement of Memorial Hall to pick up your Harvard-Yale ticket! Pick-ups for undergraduates begin Monday and will be available through Friday. Don’t miss your chance!

Tuesday 11/19

A CONVERSATION WITH KELLYANNE CONWAY

JFK Jr. Forum, Institute of Politics, 6-7 p.m.

The Institute of Politics will host a forum with former Trump pollster Kellyanne Conway, who will break down the results of the 2024 presidential election and what to expect from Trump’s second term in a conversation with IOP Director Setti D. Warren.

Wednesday 11/20

HARVARD-YALE POSTER-MAKING SESSION Annenberg Hall, 9-11 p.m.

Boost your school spirit by making some Harvard-Yale posters in Annenberg. Posterboards, markers, and merch will be provided, and there will also be a mocktail station. Show the Bulldogs who they’re dealing with!

Thursday 11/21

A CONVERSATION WITH JOHN F. KERRY JFK Jr. Forum, Institute of Politics, 6-7 p.m.

Former Secretary of State and Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John F. Kerry will speak with IOP Director Setti D. Warren at this wide-ranging conversation held at the JFK. Jr. Forum.

Friday 11/22

HYSTERIA Student Organization Center at Hilles, 8-11 p.m.

Harvard Yale Spirit Week ends with this College-sponsored HYsteria party at the SOCH. The event, hosted by Fun Enterprises and Perfect Parties, will have dancing, make-your-ownplushies, and video games.

JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

FAS Reports $3 Million Surplus for FY24

SURPLUS SLOWDOWN.

Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences ended fiscal year 2024 with its lowest surplus since 2020.

BY DHRUV P.

The Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences closed fiscal year 2024 with a $3 million surplus — its smallest surplus since 2020, the school announced last week in its annual financial report.

The surplus marks a sharp decline from the $62 million surplus the FAS recorded in fiscal year 2023. The FAS’s unrestricted reserves dropped by $14 million to $191 million, accounting for nearly 11 percent of cash operating expenses and meeting the University’s benchmark of 10 percent for the third consecutive year.

Even as the University faces a more than $150 million decline in donations after its controversial initial response to the ongoing war in Gaza, “fundraising for the FAS endowment grew by 13.7 percent” in fiscal year 2024.

In the report, the FAS highlighted that it had increased funding for undergraduate financial aid by 6 percent in light of a 3.5 percent rise in Harvard College tuition, board, and lodging fees for the 2023-2024 academic year.

“As the FAS continues to return to historical levels of undergraduate enrollment and remains committed to affordability, growing philanthropic support for financial aid is a core priority to reduce reliance on our unrestricted funds and to ensure long-term financial sustainability,” the report stated. Because of the increased financial aid expense, net undergraduate tuition revenue decreased by more than 5 percent, according to the report.

While current-use gifts to the FAS fell by $38 million compared to fiscal year 2023, the report stated that the drop was largely attributable to the absence of a one-time $35 million gift received in the previous fiscal year. Across the Universi -

BY VERONICA H. PAULUS AND AKSHAYA RAVI CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

The Harvard School of Dental Medicine is trying to fill a cavity in its financial aid offerings.

HSDM Dean William V. Giannobile said in an interview with The Crimson late last month that the school’s financial aid program provides students with less than 50 percent of their demonstrated need.

Unlike Harvard Medical School, which covers almost the entirety of students’ financial aid needs, the smaller size of HSDM’s budget prevents the school from offering more financial aid.

Giannobile said that meeting students’ full financial aid needs

BY ARAN SONNAD-JOSHI CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Student workers at the Harvard Graduate School of Design’s Fabrication Lab voted 69-4 on Tuesday to unionize. The win for Fabrication Workers United-United Auto Workers comes just over one month after the Fab Lab’s 87 technical assistants filed for unionization in early October.

“I feel really excited,” said technical assistant Livia K. Miller, a graduate student at the GSD and a lead organizer for FWUUAW. “I feel really proud of all the hard work that we’ve all collectively done, but I also feel like it’s just the beginning of anoth -

ty, current-use gifts rose by $42 million over fiscal year 2024.

The FAS attributed the smaller surplus to an $112 million increase in expenses, driven primarily by rising compensation costs and inflation impacting operations and maintenance. Total expenses rose by more than 7 percent, while revenue increased by just over 3 percent — or $52 million — due to higher endowment distributions and increased interest on reserves.

The Harvard Management Company — which stewards the University’s $53.2 billion endowment — recorded a particularly successful fiscal year, boasting a 9.6 percent return in 2024.

Compensation — including salaries, wages, and benefits — continued to account for the largest portion of the FAS budget, comprising 46 percent of total expenditures. Although salary and wage growth slowed compared to the previous fiscal year, faculty recruitment and retention had become more competitive, according to the report.

“FAS welcomed new ladder faculty, responded to retention

pressure, and funded one-time payments related to a faculty retirement incentive program,” the report stated.

Non-compensation expenses for space, occupancy, supplies, and equipment increased nearly 8 percent compared to fiscal year 2023. The FAS attributed this increase to rising utility rates, construction costs, and renovation expenditures, with major expenses incurred because of renovations at the Harvard Quantum Initiative, Adams House, and the Naito Chemistry Lab Building.

Closing the report, the FAS expressed cautious optimism for its future financial health, pledging to review its administrative functions, invest in technologies to improve operational efficiency, unlock additional unrestricted funds, and collaborate with individual departments to generate additional revenue.

“Moving forward, to ensure long-term financial sustainability, the FAS must remain disciplined in managing our expenses,” the report stated.

dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com

is a top priority for him.

“If we could just raise the bar in terms of what we can deliver in terms of scholarships and fellowships, then we will continue to be even more competitive beyond the Harvard name,” Giannobile said.

Giannobile emphasized that improving financial aid could assist in diversifying the student body — which is especially significant given that the incoming class has just four students who are “underrepresented in dentistry,” a 50 percent decrease from the previous year.

Giannobile said that HSDM’s limited financial aid offerings could inhibit its ability to attract students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.

“Some of these students

er long process where now we move into negotiation with Harvard.”

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that “we look forward to meeting with Fabrication Workers United/United Auto Workers to begin the process of negotiating this first contract.”

“We are optimistic of the work ahead that it will lead to agreement of a contract that is beneficial to everyone,” he added.

Technical assistants at the Fab Lab — who work on projects and help maintain machines like 3D printers and laser cutters — were one of few non-union student employees at the GSD. Several other posi -

might be receiving a merit scholarship for a full ride,” he said “I would love to be able to reduce that debt burden in the next five to 10 years for our students, so we can be more competitive,” Giannobile said.

In addition to its difficulties providing financial aid, HSDM has also faced budgetary challenges over the past several years. Despite Giannobile’s efforts to solicit donations from the school’s 2,700 living alumni, the school will be running a deficit this year.

Despite HSDM not meeting 100 percent of each student’s need, there has been a “significant uptick” in the number of applicants to the school’s D.M.D. program, according to HSDM Director of Financial Aid Gard-

tions — including doctoral graders, teaching assistants, and research assistants — are represented by Harvard Graduate Students Union-United Auto Workers.

Miller said the lack of a union for technical assistants “felt like a huge inequity that we needed to remedy.”

“The last few years have started to see a real conversation starting in architecture and design about labor — who’s doing it and how they’re being represented,” she said.

“Now is just a productive time for Harvard and for the GSD specifically to start engaging with those broader conversations,” she added.

In preparation for their first

ner Key.

Key said that HSDM is the only dental school that offers need-based financial aid to all eligible students even though the school can only cover a portion of their demonstrated need.

“We typically outspend out peer institutions in the amount of financial aid we provide,” Key wrote. This aid “distinguishes it from other peer dental schools, and can be an advantage for students considering the program,” Key added.

For Giannobile, the goal is “creating those opportunities where it’s not a barrier from a financial standpoint.”

veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com akshaya.ravi@thecrimson.com

contract negotiation with the University, FWU-UAW will need to elect a bargaining committee.

But after the push for unionization, Miller said, the group will take some time to rest before beginning the bargaining committee process in the spring. Though the union has yet to determine its negotiating priorities, Miller said “staffing and pay transparency” are key issues for the group.

“I think the next few weeks will mostly just be focused on checking in with our base, recovering from the big push, getting the semester done,” Miller said. “I think we’ll hit the ground running in January.”

BY MAEVE T. BRENNAN AND ANGELINA J. PARKER CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

Despite bearing the name of billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin ’89, the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences “has pretty much no funds,” Dean Emma Dench said in an interview with The Crimson last month.“We have very little money sitting in our bank,” said Dench. In April 2023, Griffin donated $300 million in unrestricted funds to Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Alongside his donation, Griffin stipulated that GSAS — and all of its individual student clubs — would be required to bear his name. Yet none of Griffin’s donation goes directly to GSAS.

Unlike the rest of Harvard’s graduate schools — which are funded by individual endowments — GSAS draws the majority of its funding from the pool of money that is owned by the FAS.

Unrestricted gifts like Griffin’s are used for general purposes, with distribution left up to the discretion of the administration. According to Dench, GSAS is “largely dependent on unrestricted money from FAS” to pay graduate students’ stipends.

In an email statement to The Crimson, an FAS spokesperson wrote that Griffin’s gift was “intended to support the School’s mission and to advance cutting-edge research and expand access and excellence in education for students and scholars regardless of economic circumstances.”

Still, a 2023 report by the GSAS Admissions and Graduate Education Working Group called GSAS’ increasing use of FAS’ unrestricted funds to pay stipends “unsus-

tainable.” Instead, the GAGE report urged Harvard to directly put “greater investment” into graduate education.

During the 2024 admissions cycle, the FAS provided $76.5 million in financial aid to graduate students, a nearly 6 percent increase from the previous year. The majority of the money — $60 million — came from restricted funds such as endowments and sponsored research. The remaining $17 million came from unrestricted funds. The money supported a raise in Harvard’s minimum stipend to graduate students, which was raised to $50,000 last fall. The raise represented an increase of up to 14.4 percent from the previous academic year, depending on the academic program. Despite a 3 percent increase in tuition rates for GSAS students, net tuition for the fiscal year declined by 25 percent due to increased financial aid for tuition and health fees. Aside from the FAS, GSAS student stipends are also funded in part by each graduate school at Harvard except for the Law School. “Each of the partner schools is responsible for funding their Ph.D. students, so it’s actually not GSAS, specifically, who’s got the money in the bank,” said Dench. GSAS maintains its own small endowment of gifts restricted to specific purposes, but uses unrestricted funds from the FAS to fund the rest of its stipends for graduate students not covered by partner schools. “Over recent years, as the costs of Ph.D. education have gone up, the disproportionate draw on FAS is on unrestricted funds,” Dench said.

HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL

HDS Students Suspended After Pray-In

LIBRARY BANS. Students were suspended from the Harvard Divinity School library for two weeks for holding a silent “pray-in.”

BY RACHAEL A. DZIABA AND AISATU J. NAKOULIMA

STAFF WRITERS

Harvard Divinity School students were issued twoweek suspensions from its library for participating in a pro-Palestine “pray-in” demonstration last Monday.

The demonstration, primarily led by Jewish students, was the first action at the Divinity School this semester, but the suspensions followed in line with the University’s response to similar protests in libraries across campus. Students and faculty received two-week bans from Widener Library and the Harvard Law School library after “study-in” protests last month. The University has yet to take action after a second faculty “study-in” last Friday.

Unlike previous “study-ins,” the demonstration was centered around prayer, but administrators still characterized the action as a protest, a violation of the University-wide guidelines that intend to prevent students from feeling unsafe or distracted in spaces like li-

braries and classrooms. Divinity School Dean Marla F. Frederick announced the suspensions in an email sent Monday morning. In the email, Frederick acknowledged the “importance of prayer.”

UNIVERSITY FINANCES FROM PAGE 1

“At HDS we honor the importance of prayer and what it represents for so many. And, as one colleague reminded us recently, ‘prayer is protest,’” Frederick wrote. “In and of itself, advocacy for the cause of people under duress —

whether in Israel, Gaza, or other parts of the world — is noble,” she added. But, she explained the pray-in was in violation of the University’s rules against protests in libraries, which led to the suspensions.

“They are the rules we currently have and as such we must uphold them,” Frederick wrote. Stephanie L. Tabashneck, a HDS student and one of the organizers behind the “pray-in”, called the dean’s reaction “inconceiv-

able.”

“There’s a serious tension there between the ideals that HDS purports to uphold and the consequences that they impose on students who are living out these very ideals,” she said.

“Harvard doesn’t support free speech,” Tabashneck said. “And I say this as someone who is Jewish and both concerned about antisemitism and concerned about the genocide of the Palestinian people,” she added.

A University spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

During the 45-minute demonstration, the graduate students prayed over religious texts including the Quran, Torah, and Bible, and

rachael.dziaba@thecrimson.com aisatu.nakoulima@thecrimson.com

Harvard’s Endowment Masks a Longstanding Gap With Ivy+ Peers

outpace the long-term return rates of higher education’s largest endowments. Through fiscal year 2024, the average five-year return rate for the largest five endowments — Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, and MIT — was 11.2 percent. Harvard’s returns were last among the group. But after his success this year, Narvekar is hoping that Harvard will soon begin to see the long-term benefits of his efforts to change the endowment’s investment strategy.

“The work HMC has undertaken to reposition the endowment for long-term success is clearly visible and the risk-adjusted returns to date show we are on the right track,” Narvekar wrote in the financial report. The endowment’s critical role in covering almost 40 percent of Harvard’s operating budget — the highest of any of its Ivy+ peers — limits its ability to tolerate the same level of risk and volatility as the S&P 500 and many other funds in higher education.

Harvard’s cautious approach contrasts with other Ivy+ peer endowments.

Brown has managed to deliver the Ivy League’s leading five-year return rate of 13.3 percent, consistently outperforming its peers by embracing a more aggressive investment strategy. Brown has the second-highest risk levels among the Ivy+, even though its endowment size is relatively smaller than Harvard’s.

Princeton and Yale, whose endowment returns in 2024 were eclipsed by Harvard, take on more risk and have historically outperformed the University over the past five years.

“Yale and Princeton have higher long-term returns than Harvard, while Harvard has the lowest standard deviation, consistent with

them following a more conservative strategy relative to Princeton and Yale,” MacLeod wrote.

“If anything, you could make the point that Havard is underperforming because they take less risk,” he added.

Harvard currently allocates the majority of its portfolio to private equity and hedge funds — a strategy designed to limit overall portfolio risk.

This shift toward private equity and away from public markets have been a trademark of Narvekar’s management.

However,this perceived reduction in risk by limiting public exposures and increasing private equity holdings is not entirely insulating the endowment from risk, according to Harvard Economics professor Jason Furman ’92.

“Some of Harvard’s risk reduction is illusory — private equity funds can be very risky even if they don’t update their values daily like the stock market does, providing a false sense of security about the overall portfolio,” Furman wrote.

HMC spokesperson Patrick S. McKiernan declined to comment on criticisms of the endowment’s performance.

Narvekar noted in his annual message this year that the private managers to whom Harvard outsourced management “did not subsequently increase the value of their investments in the context of rising public equity markets in fiscal years 2023 and 2024.”

Harvard managed to mitigate the effects of the weak performances in private equity investments from this past year by holding more accurate valuations of its investments and conducting mark downs on returns in previous years.

Other Ivy+ peers, particularly Yale, made valuations higher than the true values in past years, requiring them to adjust their valuations

and then mark down the funds — which allowed Harvard to outperform them in fiscal year 2024.

“It is a fraught exercise, and as Mr. Narvekar notes in his discussion, a lot of endowments did not mark down their private equity investments far enough in 2022, which was a very bad year for this asset class,” David L. Yermack ’85, a professor of finance at the NYU Stern School of Business, wrote in a statement to The Crimson.

“Apparently Harvard did so back in 2022, and today it is no longer stuck with the problem of having to reduce these investments’ estimated values further and further each year to reflect reality,” wrote Yermack, a former Crimson managing editor.

This “marking to market” process is when endowment managers assign a new valuation to their investments made by external managers each year — in contrast to stock prices that are tracked in real time. The mark-down process is challenging as changes in prices are not as readily accessible as they are in liquid public markets like stocks and bonds.

Yale overestimated its private equity gains when marking them to market in 2022 — a factor that likely contributed to its returns falling roughly 5 percentage points below those of Harvard this year.

“In a nutshell, that is probably why Harvard is reporting better endowment returns for 2024 relative to other large universities,” Yernack wrote.

While Harvard managed to deliver some of the strongest returns among Ivy+ peers this fiscal year, critics were quick to draw attention to the University’s performance relative to the S&P 500, which returned 21.1 percent.

“While I’m always happy to see Harvard beat Yale and Princeton at just about anything, I would be even

happier to see us beating the S&P 500,” Furman wrote.

Harvard for decades has consistently underperformed the S&P 500 as the University is unable to take on the risk that public markets bear, but many Harvard affiliates have called for the endowment returns to meet those of stocks and the broader market.

“Universities owe it to stakeholders to explain why returns on endowments often underperform simple indexes, such as the S&P

500,” Maya Sen ’00, a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote in a statement.

“These questions are important because Harvard — like other research-driven universities — is a place where any additional positive returns on the endowment would have incredible downstream benefits, not just on research and teaching, but on all facets of university life,” she added.

Harvard’s struggle to match the returns of the S&P 500 has long

been a point of contention, with critics arguing that this underperformance deters potential donors.

“If I were a donor or financially knowledgeable alumnus, I would be very disappointed, not only with this year’s investment returns, but with the underperformance that has persisted in Harvard’s endowment for a long, long time,” Yermack wrote.

sidney.lee@thecrimson.com thomas.mete@thecrimson.com

Female Harvard Faculty Retire Earlier

bers are expected to retire by 80, while 75 percent of male faculty members are expected to retire around age 85.

Female Harvard faculty members are retiring earlier than their male counterparts, per the 2024 Faculty Trends report presented at a Faculty of Arts and Sciences Administration meeting last week. The difference is most pronounced after the age of 80, according to the report, which predicted that approximately 75 percent of female faculty mem-

The report also noted an uptick in retirements last year, with more than twice as many tenured retirements since the FAS’ 2023 implementation of the Faculty Retirement Option. Offered as a one-time alternative to the Faculty Retirement Program, the FRO allowed faculty members aged 73 and older to receive additional payments equal to their base salary upon retirement.

The report attributed the increase of retirements last year to the roll-out of the FRO program and anticipates more retiring faculty in the 2024-2025 school year.

In the period between the implementation of the FRP in 2010 and 2024, female faculty accounted for 18 percent of retirements — a number that spiked to 12 of 25 retiring faculty members.

The report also found a dip in the percentage of faculty members granted tenure last year, from a 78 percent five-year average to 70 percent for the 2023-24

on Average, FAS Report

academic year. Among the 45 newly appointed tenured faculty members are History of Science professor Hannah Marcus — who also sits on Executive Committee of Harvard’s Center of Jewish Studies — and Economics professor Shengwu Li, the grandson of the former Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew who studies foraging theory and algorithmic strategies in investment. Currently, 39 percent of FAS faculty are women, and less than one percent identify as nonbinary. While representation of peo-

ple of color increased, the number of female tenure-track faculty decreased. On average, tenure-track and non-ladder faculty are on average more diverse — both by gender, ethnicity, and race — than tenured faculty. Over the past 10 years, hiring has remained relatively stable across the Arts & Humanities and Sciences divisions of the FAS. Faculty for SEAS has expanded according to the strategic plan.

sunshine.chen@thecrimson.com angelina.parker@thecrimson.com

Reveals

Up to Date with

THOMAS J. METE — CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Most Schools Dream of Harvard. These 21 Expect It.

East Side and Midwestern public schools with thousand-person graduating classes; international schools set a thousand miles from Cambridge and high schools a short walk from Harvard Yard.

Over the past 15 years, more than 7,000 secondary schools have sent at least one student to Harvard.

These schools span every American state, dozens of countries from around the globe, and every kind of institution imaginable. They are small, private high schools nestled in Manhattan’s Upper

For many of these schools, to send a student to Harvard is a blip, a rare anomaly in an obscure and lofty admissions process. But for a handful of high schools, a Harvard acceptance is an expectation — not an aspiration.

Since 2009, 184 schools have sent one or more students to Harvard at least 10 times. These schools, by The Crimson’s count, are particularly represented in the College’s admitted classes.

Of all schools that have sent students to Harvard, one in 11 students has come from just 21 high schools across the United States.

‘I Wanted to Go to Harvard’ When William E. Buehler ’28 was applying to elite private high schools in eighth grade, one of the considerations was enrolling in a school that would give him the best chances at attending a top Ivy League college.

Buehler was offered admission to Phillips Academy in Andover, Mass., a prestigious preparatory school that sends roughly 11 students to Harvard each year from a graduating class of less than 350.

“I did not go to Andover

purely because I wanted to go to Andover,” Buheler said. “I went to Andover partially because I wanted to go to Harvard.” Andover, like a series of other highly selective and affluent schools, has been considered a “feeder school” to Harvard — one that sends an exceptionally high number of students to the College every year.

In the year since the Supreme Court ruled Harvard’s race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional, the University has emphasized its commitment to diversity and touted its efforts to recruit students from small towns and rural areas.

But even amid a rapidly changing admissions landscape for higher education, one

thing remains consistent for Harvard: it loves to pull from schools like Andover.

A Crimson analysis of the last 15 matriculated freshman classes found that a disproportionate number of students come from just a handful of high schools — private schools, local public schools, and specialized schools alike.

the enrolled class of 2028 was drawn from approximately 1,200 high schools.”

Feeder Schools by the Numbers

The Crimson used data from the Freshman Register — an annually-published reference book containing the names, images, addresses, and high schools of origin for students who enroll at Harvard College — to determine which institutions send the most students to Harvard.

All the data was self-reported by students, and it is almost certainly an undercount of the disproportionate presence that a handful of high schools have within the College’s matriculated class. An average of 10 percent of every matriculated class does not submit information to the Register.

The Crimson compiled information available from the Freshman Register because the Office of Institutional Research and Analytics and the Harvard College Admissions Office denied a request to share their official data on which high schools Harvard students graduated from.

Faculty of Arts and Sciences spokesperson James Chisholm wrote in a statement that “Harvard College admits students not high schools.”

“Harvard Admissions evaluates each individual student based upon their potential to enrich the undergraduate community and impact the world following their time at Harvard,” Chisholm added. “No high school receives preferential treatment, and, in fact,

Since 2009, 21 high schools have sent at least 2,216 students to Harvard College. A majority of these schools are private, all of them are located within the United States, and all but two — Harvard-Westlake

private, with tuition hovering well into the tens of thousands.

Of the nine public schools, four are selective magnet schools, drawing students by an exam or centralized admissions process. Four — Scarsdale High School in Scarsdale, New York; Lexington High School in Lexington, Mass.; Brookline High School in Brookline, Mass.; and Belmont High School in Belmont, Mass.

— are based in uniquely affluent, highly-educated suburbs. The remaining school is Cambridge Rindge and Latin, the only public high school in Cambridge, located minutes from Harvard Yard.

‘Access to Resources’

The notion that certain high schools may be disproportionately represented within the College’s matriculated classes is far from new.

Ties between Harvard and Phillips Exeter and Andover, the twin Northeast preparatory schools renowned for

spite Harvard’s efforts to diversify its admitted classes, the schools from which its students come remain affluent — a fact that may prove unsurprising when posed in the context of an admissions process that, in many ways, tilts toward the rich.

Your average feeder school is going to be a highly affluent school, which means the students have access to resources, which means they have access to better opportunities to stand out in the college admissions process,” said Dan Lee, the founder of private college counseling firm Solomon Admissions Counseling.

Access to resources is a major part of what sets these schools apart. For one, private schools — which often have smaller class sizes, coupled with larger college counseling teams — are able to offer more personalized support for students applying to college. Public schools may find themselves struggling to compete.

“Here in Boston, the typical ratio for students to guidance

For some students, they had to travel 30 minutes to an hour away from their home for their Harvard alumni interview. If you go to Andover, Exeter, or Deerfield, Harvard comes to you.

their shared past with the Ivy League, proved so close that the College’s sports teams played against both high schools well into the 20th century. Today, feeder schools continue to dominate discourse around college admissions. De -

counselors is 410 to 1,” said Mer -

edith G. Traquina, the interim executive director of Minds Matter Boston — a nonprofit aimed at providing college counseling and mentorship services to low-income youth.

“There aren’t enough adults

in the building to really give them differentiated college counseling,” Traquina added.

While Boston set a goal in 2022 to have one guidance counselor for every 150 students, that ratio is far from the counseling a preparatory school can provide. Andover, for example, reported a college counseling team of 13 people and a senior class size of 338 during the 2023-2024 academic year, according to the school’s website — a ratio of 26 students to 1 counselor.

But the disparity not only lies in a school’s resources, but also Harvard’s familiarity with it.

Anthony Abraham Jack, an associate professor of higher education leadership at Boston University, said that Harvard’s long-term relationship with elite high schools essentially gives students a “home court advantage.”

“For some students, they had to travel 30 minutes to an hour away from their home for their Harvard alumni interview,” Jack said. “If you go to Andover, Exeter, or Deerfield, Harvard comes to you.”

“That is literally the difference in power of these institutions,” he added.

The differences between feeder schools and the hundreds of other schools from which students arrive at Harvard are immense, and often difficult to pinpoint — an issue only further blurred by the opacity of college admissions processes.

To some, the fact that certain schools serve to preselect students — often overtly, through an admissions process or entrance exam — helps clarify the disparity.

Private schools and public magnet schools — which have their own admissions processes — select a group of students in which a set of administrators have already seen merit.

Affluent public schools attract legions of students that are wealthier and better-resourced than their peers across the country.

Lee said that it makes sense that these self-selecting schools will have “the best students from across the nation.”

“Obviously, a lot of them are going to get into Harvard,” he said. “It’s correlation, not causation.”

According to Buehler, the Andover student, the resourc -

es at a selective high school go a long way, both towards the experience of its students and their long-term academic success.

“The opportunities you get there are unlike anything you’ll get elsewhere. The kids that go there, they’re unlike anything else we’ll get elsewhere,” Buehler said.

elyse.goncalves@thecrimson.com matan.josephy@thecrimson.com grayson.martin@thecrimson.com

Anthony Abraham Jack

Associate Professor at Boston University

IOP Director, Alumni Rebuke Student President

vironment,” he wrote. “Donald Trump’s imminent return to power underscores the importance of the IOP finally breaking from our long-standing commitment to it.”

Harvard Institute of Politics Director Setti D. Warren said the organization will remain nonpartisan, issuing a sharp rebuke of his own student president, Pratyush Mallick ’25, who called on the IOP to drop its nonpartisan mandate in the wake of Donald Trump’s reelection.

Mallick’s proposal, shared in an op-ed published in The Crimson on Friday, urged the IOP to “resist platforming anti-democratic voices in the guise of nonpartisanship” and sparked national backlash from critics who decried the idea as unaligned with the IOP’s values.

Hours later, Warren affirmed in a letter to the editor, which was also published in The Crimson, that the IOP was committed to nonpartisanship, calling it a foundational principle for the organization.

“As the director and leader of the IOP, I believe that for it to be successful, experiential learning must happen on a nonpartisan basis,” Warren wrote.

Mallick, who did not consult Warren before publishing his oped, said in an interview on Saturday that he intended to warn against “platforming violent rhetoric or calling for rigged elections” — not suggest that the IOP “should get rid of nonpartisanship.”

But in the op-ed, Mallick explicitly called on the IOP to move away from nonpartisanship.

“In my personal view, nonpartisanship — a founding principle of the IOP — is no longer a tenable position in today’s political en-

Warren did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article. IOP spokesperson Brigid O’Rourke declined to comment on Mallick’s op-ed. But in interviews with The Crimson, 11 current and former IOP student leaders said Mallick’s statements were not reflective of the IOP’s mission and priorities.\

Janna E. Ramadan ’23, a former IOP president, said that during her time leading the organization being nonpartisan “reflected the values we appreciated” without inhibiting the IOP from commenting on important issues.

“During my tenure at the IOP, we had to navigate a really challenging situation with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and we managed to navigate both creating an online virtual community space and releasing a statement that reflected our student body,” she said.

“That’s not to say it’s easy work, but it can be done.”

Ramadan added that if the IOP were to become a partisan organization, it could jeopardize its tax-exempt status as a nonprofit organization.

“To become partisan would then change the way in which we are able to get funding and the way in which we’re able to operate,” she said.

Mallick’s op-ed was also heavily criticized by students involved with conservative groups at the IOP and Harvard.

Michael Oved ’25, the IOP’s Conservative Coalition chair and Harvard Republican Club president, called Mallick’s comments “a disappointing display of extreme partisanship from someone tasked with cultivating an environment welcome to all political perspectives.”

Abigail L. Carr ’25, the former

co-chair of the Conservative Coalition, wrote in a statement that other student organizations such as Harvard College Democrats and the HRC offer partisan spaces for students — and that the IOP already leans liberal in its programming.

“Never mind that a random sampling of the IOP Student Advisory Council would likely yield a student who worked in some capacity on the Harris campaign,” Carr wrote.

The call to drop the IOP’s commitment to nonpartisanship comes three years after the IOP removed Rep. Elise M. Stefanik ’06 (R-N.Y.) from the organization’s Senior Advisory Committee for challenging President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 elections.

Mallick’s op-ed also comes less than a week before the IOP holds an election for its Senior Advisory Committee which will elect his successor. Both tickets for the SAC’s president and vice president positions distanced them-

selves from Mallick’s op-ed.

Tenzin R. Gund-Morrow ’26 and Summer A. L. Tan ’26 — who are running as a ticket for IOP president and vice president, respectively — wrote in a statement that “protecting nonpartisanship at the Institute of Politics is more important than ever.”

“The IOP was founded not only to foster mutual respect across party lines, but most importantly to encourage productive debate and discussion among students and civic leaders who disagree,” they wrote.

Thomas A. Tait ’26, who is also running to succeed Mallick, wrote in a statement that “it is imperative the IOP maintain its nonpartisan mission.”

“The IOP’s mission is to provide a path to public service for all students — regardless of political perspective,” he wrote. “While I consider Prat to be a good friend and respect his leadership, I disagree with an institutional rejection of an ideology that has res-

onated with a majority of our country.”

Still, some former IOP student leaders said that while they believe the IOP should remain non-partisan, they thought that Mallick’s op-ed did not reflect the message he had intended to make.

Amen H. Gashaw ’24, Mallick’s direct predecessor, said his op-ed suffered from an “imprecision in language” and that she believed Mallick had meant that the IOP “can’t use nonpartisanship as an excuse to platform and elevate people who have demonstrated a disregard for democracy.”

“I may have worded it differently just to get across like nonpartisanship is not the enemy of standing for democracy,” she said. “I don’t think that that’s what Prat meant either.”

Tabitha L. Escalante ’23, a former IOP vice president, wrote in a statement that “effective political leadership cannot coexist” with values of authoritarianism and “otherwise violent rhetoric” — an

idea she thought Mallick was endorsing through his op-ed.

“I take Prat’s stated concern with the Institute’s non-partisanship to be signaling a broader fear that it will remain neutral when faced with persistent attacks on democracy,” she wrote. Still, former IOP Treasurer Carter G. Demaray ’25 cautioned that instead of pushing away Republicans by becoming a partisan organization, the IOP should be active in hearing working class voices ahead of the next election.

“Coming from a working-class background, I believe the IOP and Harvard would benefit from hearing this group’s perspective to better understand why so many supported Trump despite his threat to democratic institutions,” he said. “That should be the IOP’s takeaway from the election and next focus,” Demaray added.

Harvard Officials Wanted Harsher Discipline for Student Protesters

centivize more violations.”

placing more than 20 students on involuntary leaves of absence.

Four days later, early in the morning on May 14, Garber and the encampment protesters reached a deal after hours of late-night negotiations. The protesters would pack up their tents and leave the Yard while Garber would reinstate the students from involuntary leave, expedite their Ad Board cases, and arrange a meeting to discuss the University’s endowment.

In a University-wide message announcing the end of the encampment, Garber wrote that he would ask the boards to make disciplinary decisions “according to their existing practices and precedents.” In her interview with the committee, Prizker said that the deal did not affect the University’s ability to impose disciplinary consequences aside from expediting the decisions.

“I called him back just to make sure I’d understood correctly,” Prizker added. “‘You didn’t agree to anything else?’ ‘No, I didn’t.’ Because I wanted to make sure that we were not — that these kids were still subject to disciplinary action.”

“That’s what Alan explained to me,” Pritzker said. “And, in fact, I heard that. Remember, it’s 3 in the morning. I’m sound asleep. I’m on a freaking train. And I hung up the phone.”

The next day, Harvard Medical School professor Jerome E. Groopman, a member of the presidential task force to combat antisemitism and member of Harvard Faculty for Israel, wrote to other members of the group to express concern that the agreement was “rewarding” the protesters and would “in-

In a statement provided to The Crimson after the congressional report was released, task force cochairs History professor Derek J. Penslar and HLS professor Jared A. Ellias wrote that their group has “the full support of the new Harvard administration.”

“There is no question that Harvard has been grappling with antisemitism, but also no question that the university central administration grasps the size of the problem,” they wrote.

After the end of the encamp-

ment, the College’s Ad Board suspended five students and placed more than 20 others on probation — preventing 13 seniors from graduating at the University’s Commencement ceremony.

The decision to discipline the students sparked fierce pushback from a group of faculty members that pushed through a resolution to add the 13 seniors back onto the list of degrees for conferral at a faculty meeting. The 11th-hour attempt to override the Ad Boards was rejected by the Corporation, which has final say over the degree conferrals. But in her transcribed interview with the committee, Pritzker said that the University’s struggles with its Ad Boards largely stems from the membership of those committees — which are largely composed of faculty members at most Harvard schools.

“It starts with who you put on the ad boards and what is their attitude about accountability,” Pritzker told the committee.

GRADUATE STUDENT LIFE

GSAS Dhall Limits Spark Student Concern

GOING HUNGRY. Harvard graduate students voiced complaints over their limited access to dining halls on campus.

BY MAEVE T. BRENNAN AND ANGELINA J. PARKER CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS

While dining options at Harvard have long since been criticized by undergraduates, students at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences face a different problem: they can only eat at one dining hall. And sometimes, that hall can’t serve them food.

At a November meeting, the GSAS Student Council raised concerns about the restrictive meal plan and expensive food prices at Lehman Hall Commons, the GSAS dining hall.

“It’s not open for breakfast. It’s not open on the weekend. It’s not open during holidays. It’s not open during move-in week. It’s not open during finals week, with some exceptions, so there are very reduced hours compared to the dining halls for other students,” Julia Kempton, a master’s student in Middle Eastern Studies, said.

“There have also been a number of incidents in the last couple of weeks where food has run out during meals, or the dining hall has closed early because they had no options remaining, or they ran out of vegetarian options,” Kempton said. Students who live in a GSAS

dorm are required to purchase a meal plan along with their housing. Each meal plan consists of a declining balance card of $1,543.24 for the fall semester and $1,371.76 for the spring semester. Unused funds do not get refunded at the end of each academic year. For GSAS students living on stipends, the dorms are an affordable option amidst high Cambridge and Boston housing prices. However, GSC members said the mandatory meal plan adds unavoidable costs to residential housing. Students living at other graduate school housing — such as Harvard Law

School dorms — are not required to join a meal plan as part of their housing contract.

“Do we raise the stipend for students to be able to afford stuff? Or do we try to lower the price of what’s offered here?” asked David A. Caldas, a master’s student in Medical Anthropology and the cochair of support for the GSC.

Many GSAS students are also required to commute to other schools for class, such as Ph.D. candidates in STEM subjects who have to take classes at the Science & Engineering Complex or M.D.Ph.D. students who take classes in

Longwood. However, their dining plans do not allow them to spend more than $100 of their meal plans per semester at other campuses.

Raima Islam, a master’s student in computational science and engineering, said she often eats lunch at the SEC Café and misses dinner at Lehman around two or three times per week.

“There’s a very high chance we might run out of the balance and have to use our own money,” Islam said. “So I feel like the credit limit should be increased.”

“There are some students who use all of their dining dollars who can’t afford food,” Kempton said.

“Then there are other students whose money goes to waste every semester, and they have to find some other way to get their food.”

Commutes can leave students with leftover dining dollars, even as they spend money out-of-pocket at other graduate schools.

GSAS students have also expressed some discontent with Lehman Hall’s prices. Though meals at Lehman Hall typically cost between $10 and $16, the School of Public Health has breakfast and lunch specials — known as Daily Dollar Deals — for as low as $1. “It

maeve.brennan@thecrimson.com

Pete Buttigieg ’04 Calls Local Government ‘Salvation’ for Dems

BY WILLIAM

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg ’04 said state and local government officials will play key roles in advancing the

Democrats’ agenda under President-elect Donald Trump’s administration at a Harvard Institute of Politics forum on Tuesday.

“In moments like this, our salvation really will come from the local — the local and the state bodies,” Buttigieg said. “We would like a little more consistency in federalism, but a lot of the answers are going to come from mayors, from communities, from states that aren’t captive to some wacky ideological project.”

Buttigieg’s comments to a packed audience come just a week after Trump handed Vice President Kamala Harris a resounding defeat in the 2024 elections — a loss that Buttigieg attributed to Americans’ frustrations with the country’s economy.

Buttigieg said that though some people are “correctly upset with the administration because we haven’t solved their economic problem,” others have been misguided by misinformation that portrays the state of the economy as worse than it is.

“If we haven’t solved somebody’s economic problems, then we’ve got more to do,” Buttigieg said. “If we’ve done good work for somebody and

they feel like they’re personally doing OK, but they don’t feel like a national economy is doing OK, that’s a different set of challenges.”

“That’s an information challenge,” he added. “And we gotta be real about both.”

Buttigieg’s talk is the first forum since the IOP landed in hot water last weekend after IOP President Pratyush Mallick ‘25 penned an op-ed in The Crimson urging the group to drop its nonpartisan mandate following Trump’s reelection.

IOP Director Setti Warren — who said the IOP would remain non-partisan in a letter to the editor over the weekend — opened the talk by reaffirming the organization’s commitment to remaining non-partisan.

“Before we begin, I want to emphasize the fact that the IOP takes great pride that we are a nonpartisan organization,” he said.

Buttigieg also discussed nonpartisanship later in the talk, saying that “being nonpartisan or bipartisan is not the same thing as being neutral.”

“If there are certain things that are red lines, like believing in de-

mocracy or supporting the Constitution, you can hold to those red lines and still disagree all day about fiscal policy, social policy,” he said.

Buttigieg delivered the talk in his official capacity as Transportation secretary, which he cited as a reason that he would “refrain from contributing to the takes on campaigns and elections.”

Still, Buttigieg delivered some subtle jabs at the incoming Trump administration.

“I think that universal virtues that are particularly prized in the Midwest would be humility, decency, and honesty,” he said. “Obviously the incoming leadership could not more extravagantly be different in terms of style from those Midwestern qualities.”

While Buttigieg said he had hoped that the country was moving toward “a normal dynamic among the two political parties” prior to the election last week, he expressed concern about the state of political polarization now in the wake of Trump’s reelection.

“We don’t seem to be that much further away from the edge of the cliff,” he said.

Throughout the event, Butti-

gieg returned to “unsexy but important” government investment in infrastructure and “politics of the everyday” as key methods for rebuilding Americans’ trust in government and improving bipartisan relations.

Buttigieg particularly referenced his track record as Transportation secretary, citing his “onetwo punch” to pass policies like requiring U.S air carriers to automatically refund consumers in the case of a flight cancellation.

“First we use transparency to drive change, then we back it up with regulation to require those changes,” he said.

Buttigieg also discussed President Joe Biden’s legislative record in infrastructure investment, saying that infrastructure should remain a priority under Trump’s administration and could open an opportunity for bipartisan collaboration.

“There’s no such thing as a Republican way to fill a hole in the road or no Democratic way to pick up trash,” he said.

william.mao@thecrimson.com dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com

Palestine Solidarity Committee Urges Boycott of Israel Trek

Gaza or in Israel in one day,” Frazier said. “The experience for 43,000 Palestinians has been brutal.”

On Monday, the PSC held “Boycott Israel Trek Office Hours” for students to learn more about why they were calling for people to avoid traveling to Israel.

“We think it’s a really important space for students to come and learn more before joining such a harmful experience,” said Frazier.

Doron Ben Haim ’27, an Israel Trek leader, expressed the Trek’s commitment to diverse perspectives in a statement to The Crimson.

“We respect and acknowledge differing views on this topic and are committed to creating a space that values each perspective as part of a genuine learning experience,” Ben Haim wrote.

“While we are aware of calls to boycott this Trek, we regret that these efforts have often extended to nearly any program linked to Israel or Israelis,” he added.

Overall, PSC organizers criticized a lack of neutrality in Israel Trek.

“Anything that you’ll see there, especially when it’s called the Israel Trek, is going to be very one-sided,” said Violet T.M. Barron ’26, a

effort to approach it with balance and integrity” in his statement.

“While the name ‘Israel Trek’ reflects the geographic focus of the trip, the experiences and discussions are far-reaching and nuanced, offering students a firsthand look at the diversity of narratives that shape the region,” he added.

Harvard Israel Initiative President Charles M. Covit ’27 said he disagreed with claims that the Trek did not have educational value for participants and expressed hope that the boycott would not affect students’ interest in the Trek.

“I think that it’s a shame that they’re trying to apply that kind of social pressure on kids that might be interested,” said Covit, a Crimson Editorial editor.

prominent pro-Palestine activist on campus and Crimson Editorial editor.

Ben Haim, however, emphasized the Trek’s aim to “take the conflict seriously and make every

“The best way to actually learn is to go there for yourself and talk to people,” Covit said. “Why not take the opportunity to learn?”

hiral.chavre@thecrimson.com

The Kenneth C. Griffin Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is Harvard’s largest graduate school. JULIAN J. GIORDANO — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg ‘04 speaks at a Harvard Kennedy School IOP forum. MAE T. WEIR — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Allston Gears Up to Negotiate With Harvard

ments across the city, which usually reach several million at most.

Now, the parties are heading back to the bargaining table to agree on a benefits package which is almost certain to outstrip the $43 million commitment — and neighborhood advocates are assembling their list of demands.

Allston is poised to begin high-stakes negotiations with Harvard for tens of millions of dollars in community benefits, as the University prepares to release an initial draft of its second 10-year Institutional Master Plan for its campus across the Charles.

The last IMP, finalized in 2014, saw Harvard commit $43 million in community benefits to Allston to offset the impacts of its rapid expansion in the neighborhood. That commitment — negotiated between University and city officials and a city-appointed resident group called the Harvard Allston Task Force — dwarfed the typical size of community benefits agree-

Cindy Marchando, the task force chair, said in an interview on Friday that the group was looking to prioritize affordable housing, supporting artists and small businesses along Western Avenue, and support for replacing Allston’s beleaguered Jackson-Mann Community Center. She said the task force would try to respond to the neighborhood’s rising cost of living and changing demographics.

“Our community has changed over the past 10 years, so have our needs,” she said.

The new IMP, which Harvard previewed in a public meeting in January, only applies to land used for “institutional” purposes. Harvard’s extensive commercial developments in the neighborhood, such

as the $750-million Enterprise Research Campus, go through a separate approval process, with their own community benefits.

But the IMP process, which will involve several rounds of negotiations and community feedback, gives residents, city officials, and local leaders an opportunity to influence the direction of Harvard’s developing Lower Allston campus — as well as the shape of the neighborhood itself.

In public comments submitted to the city, local stakeholders have already begun to sketch out their vision for the agreement.

Boston City Councilor Elizabeth A. “Liz” Breadon urged Harvard to build housing for graduate students, highlighting the high demand for current neighborhood housing, exacerbated by a large student population.

Kevin M. Carragee, a member of the Coalition for a Just All-

Cambridge Eyes Oct. 2025 as End Date for Superintendent Search

DARCY

The Cambridge School Committee has gone six months without a plan to hire a permanent superintendent — but a commitment to officially launch the highly anticipated search next week and a new tentative timeline look to change that. According to the timeline, presented at a Tuesday meeting, the process will extend into next school year: the committee intends to make an offer to a prospective superintendent by Oct. 15, 2025, and they will take the helm by the following July. The committee had previously considered timelines that would see superintendents hired by the end of this academic year. But — with most superintendent offers made in December, according to the Massachusetts Association of School Committees — the committee dragged its heels on discussions, running out the clock on having a new hire in place by the summer.

The new timeline answers calls from educators and parents to allow ample time for community engagement. The first test at soliciting input from stakeholders in Cambridge will come at the School Committee’s next meeting on Nov. 19. Still, the timeline has gaps — such as dates for administering community surveys, forming focus groups, or making an offer to a search firm.

In order to iron out some of these details, committee members will sit on three “working groups,” each focusing on a different area: Outlining community engagement, assembling a profile of the school district to send to search firms, and crafting a leadership profile — essentially, a job description.

The committee said it would finalize assignments for the working group by next week, with three or fewer members sitting on each. By keeping the number of members under four — which would constitute a quorum of the full body — the working groups can likely meet in private under Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law.

With opportunities for public comment at the upcoming meeting, members braced for more changes to the tentative schedule.

Once committee members are assigned and a timeline is finalized, people will “have something to actually opine about,” committee member Richard Harding, Jr. said.

Committee member Elizabeth C.P. Hudson highlighted the importance of presenting a rough sketch of the search to facilitate initial discussions at the committee’s upcoming meeting.

“People will say, ‘Here are 12 ideas I have,’” Hudson said. “One, they don’t feel heard if we don’t respond. Two, they’ll likely highlight things that we haven’t thought of.”

Harding said the committee needs to prepare for “significant changes” to the search process, given the weight of selecting a new leader.

“This is the biggest thing that we’ll do in the next year,” Harding said. “And I think people are paying attention.”

darcy.lin@thecrimson.com emily.schwartz@thecrimson.com

ston, proposed that Harvard turn its proposed Gateway Project — a

300,000-square-foot development for retail, administrative, and academic uses — into a much taller, denser, primarily residential development.

Boston’s Office of New Urban Mechanics asked Harvard to join and expand a homeshare program, piloted by the city in 2017, providing graduate students with a room in the residence of older adults looking to downsize.

And in their own public comment letter, the Harvard Allston Task Force said they have some unfinished business from the last IMP to settle with the University.

“We find that an inordinate portion of community benefits, especially those allocated to the Harvard Ed Portal, have been indirectly serving Harvard University and accommodating non-Allston/Brighton residents over the

local community,” the group wrote.

“Consequently, the benefits intended to uplift the Allston and Brighton neighborhoods have not solely focused on these areas.”

A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment for this article.

In addition to negotiating with residents and neighborhood activists, Harvard faces some political barriers to securing approval for the IMP. It will need to win over two key Allston elected officials: Breadon and State Rep. Michael J. Moran, a longtime critic of the University’s expansion in the neighborhood.

Though their support is not technically make-or-break for the University, major developments and master plans have rarely been approved by the city without support from the district’s representatives, according to a former city hall official.

But Harvard’s extensive person-

slowly progressed through the Council since March — reflects a longstanding desire from city officials to abolish single-family zoning, something they say has raised housing prices and contributed to the city’s housing shortage.

Barbara Walter, claimed the proposal was “geared towards taking away from existing residents, especially homeowners.”

city proposal to eliminate single-family zoning city-wide.

The meeting began with Cambridge Development Department

Zoning Director Jeff Roberts detailing the proposal’s projected impacts for more than an hour — assuring both residents and board members that the zoning would not constitute a radical upheaval of the status quo — as residents sat anxiously awaiting their turn in public comment.

But when it was the residents’ turn to speak, an overwhelming majority painted the change, which would allow developers to build six-story multifamily developments across the city, as a permanent and possibly destructive change to Cambridge’s built environment.

“The City Council members and the developers should not be making a decision on behalf of the citizens that will have such a massive impact on our community,” Elizabeth “Liz” Loya said. The proposal — which has

But the proposal has faced growing local opposition, with neighborhood leaders similarly pushing back against the zoning proposal a few weeks ago at a City Council hearing.

The change may face skepticism from the Planning Board, which is expected to give a nonbinding recommendation on the proposal next Tuesday and has historically been more wary than the Council of aggressive zoning reform.

The Planning Board also has skin in the game: if the upzoning is approved, developers will be able to construct larger, denser apartment buildings anywhere in the city without seeking approval from the body, which considers applications for developments that exceed zoning restrictions.

When its members reconvene next week, the testimony from Tuesday’s hearing will be fresh in their minds.

Helen Walker projected the proposal would cause Cambridge to descend into “chaos” as it would distribute “extreme height randomly throughout the city.” Another Cambridge resident,

“This whole rework seems overly simplistic and very dumbed down,” said Alex Van Praagh. The residents urged the city to go back to the drawing board and rework the proposal, taking into account the implications it may have on its residents and the city overall.

Andrea Killory encouraged the board to “try to find something that actually creates affordable housing and protects the character and beauty of the city and also is more environmentally conscientious.” And Harvard professor Suzanne P. Blier — who serves as president of both the Cambridge Citizens Coalition and the Harvard Square Neighborhood Association — said the plan had echoes of Robert Moses, the mid-century city planner who wielded near-absolute power over New York City’s landscape. “This is radical and irresponsible. It’s a fool’s paradise, ideologically driven, with no basis in fact on the ground,” she said. “I fear that Cambridge will become the new Robert Moses.”

Baldwin Development Sparks Backlash

Tensions ran high in the Baldwin School cafeteria

Thursday night as more than 40 Cambridge residents sparred over a proposed eight-story affordable housing development set to be built in the Baldwin neighborhood. Representatives from nonprofit developer Homeowner’s Rehab, Inc did their best to woo angry residents about the merits of the development, which will bring upwards of 80 affordable units to a property at 28-30 Wendell Street. But as some attendees applauded the efforts to bring more affordable housing to the neighborhood, the majority remained irate about the planned development, which they said was too tall and too dense for a neighborhood where the tallest buildings average four stories.

“It’s too tall, it’s huge,” one Baldwin neighborhood resident said.

“It’s like a warehouse on our block.”

Another called it a “monstrosity.”

“I’d like to welcome those 15 families, and maybe we can’t because of the height issue. But those are the people I want to think about,” Stockard said. But as HRI attempted to respond to specific concerns, the crowd grew more unruly and intolerant of the project’s proponents.

When Cambridge City Councilor Burhan Azeem — an outspoken proponent of affordable housing – voiced his support for development, angry residents interrupted him,

The development is among the first to begin the planning process under Cambridge’s Affordable Housing Overlay, which allows developers to construct buildings that exceed height and density requirements without special permission from the city, provided the developments contain only affordable units.

display at Thursday’s meeting, as some attendees said they felt powerless to halt or modify the project.

As a result, though the developers agreed to decrease the building’s height by one story — shaving off 10-and-a-half feet and 15 units — following a similar community meeting in June, the project is likely to roll ahead even despite concerted opposition from some neighbors. That reality was on full

“Your mind has all been made up. There’s not going to be any tweaks, and if any of us think that that’s going to happen, that’s really misguided,” another neighborhood resident said. Most residents did not introduce themselves by name when they spoke.

The blowback comes amid growing resistance from some quarters in the city toward local of-

After Staffing Problems, CPD Recruits Non-Cambridge Officers

versity,” she added.

For the first time in department history, the Cambridge Police Department has begun hiring new officers from outside the city in order to fill staff vacancies. This change comes as CPD has increasingly “forced” officers to work back-to-back shifts due to department hiring shortages. If the new recruits pass their final screening, the hiring initiatives will fill nearly 30 vacancies by the summer, according to CPD Commissioner Christine A. Elow. Elow said that the department has “struck gold” by expanding recruitment efforts to non-Cambridge residents. The department generally hires new officers from a list of tested candidates crafted by the Civil Service Commission. Since fewer qualified Cambridge residents took the exam this year, CPD was forced to broaden its search.

“Let’s just say you used to be a resident in the City of Cambridge, right, and you left for whatever reason, but you’ve always wanted to be a police officer,” Elow said.

“We can get you now by you signing up on the non-resident list.”

“This is the first time, I will say, in the history of the police department, we’ve gone to that non-resident list, and we’re picking up di-

CPD also initiated lateral transfers — allowing for hires from nearby departments — to quickly fill in vacancies. The strategy resulted in five new officers, according to CPD spokesperson Robert Goulston.

Elow said that the department has struggled to recruit officers due to demographic and population shifts in Cambridge.

“The population that I grew up with — the working class population that was here — so many of that community has moved out of the city,” she said.

According to the American Community Survey, the median household income in Cambridge has increased by nearly 73 percent since 1989.

Elow said she believes that the success of lateral transfers is due to the “mission” of CPD.

“We’re an attractive place to work — we’re inclusive, we pay well, and people are definitely interested in the pay and in the benefits,” she said. “What I really find that people were interested in is the quality of work that we do — the fact that we have resources and support to work with some of our more vulnerable populations.”

Elow added that the department scrutinizes the records of applicants to ensure CPD can “get the best of the best from other communities because we can re-

ally pick and choose.”

“We don’t want to bring a police officer here who may have had issues in their own community,” she said. “If you had any sort of negative marks on your history, we are not taking you.”

Elow, however, declined to comment on the continued employment of Sgt. James Crowley, an officer accused of sexual assault in 2020. In August, an investigation by the Boston Globe revealed that the City of Cambridge paid $1.4 million in settlements to three female CPD officers who accused Crowley of sexual assault. Crowley also made national headlines in 2009 when he arrested Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home in Cambridge.

Elow declined to comment on the status of Crowley’s employment, saying that the personnel situation is “ongoing”.

The Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association wrote in a statement to The Crimson that they are “extremely encouraged by the effort of the city and department to fill the vacancies.”

“It is our hope that this hiring practice will continue into the future,” the statement read. “We look forward to welcoming the officers from other agencies and the recruits into our academy.”

ficials’ attempts to boost housing construction. A proposal to eliminate single-family zoning met a similarly icy reception at a Planning Board hearing on Tuesday.

Still, many attendees praised the development, which they said was necessary to address Cambridge’s severe shortage of affordable housing.

“I’m looking forward to welcoming these families, and I really appreciate the work you’ve done to make the community a part of the process,” Sam Polzin, a neighborhood resident, said. James G. Stockard, Jr. — a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a founding member of the city’s Affordable Housing Trust — emphasized that he wanted to make “every room available” for families that were struggling to make ends meet.

Like most of the supporters, he added that he was disappointed by the decision to remove the top story from the project.

2024, the duration of the project is unknown.

A little slice of serenity along the Charles River was disrupted last week as the residents of 66 units in the high-end Riverview Apartments were told to evacuate the building for at least one year owing to issues in the building’s concrete and steel structure.

The Riverview Board of Trustees, after consulting external professionals, determined that the building needed to be evacuated for residents’ safety — citing high demand-to-capacity ratios with the potential to “overload” the building, according to a Wednesday press release.

In the meantime, Thayer & Associates — the management company that oversees the apartment — will work to address structural issues through extensive repairs. Though the first phase of construction is slated to begin before the end of

City spokesperson Jeremy Warnick, however, clarified that “this is not at the stage of an emergency building evacuation.”

“While the building currently remains habitable, tenants are voluntarily leaving due to the structural concerns and needed repairs,” Warnick wrote in an email.

Still, the Board of Trustees has set a “near-term” timeframe for tenants to vacate, according to Warnick.

The building was designed as rental housing in the early 1960s using substandard concrete, improperly reinforced with steel rebar. Though the building transitioned to luxury condos in 1972, the structural hazards went undiscovered for nearly 60 years.

“Until recently, no one had any reason to suspect the errors that occurred in the original construction,” according to a press release from Thayer & Associates president Candice

Morse. Residents — the majority of whom own their units — were given notice to evacuate last week, according to a letter from M. Anne Sa’adah ’76, the president of the building’s board of trustees. They were invited to a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the situation further. Though access to the building is restricted, residents or those helping them move will be allowed back in

Local residents sparred over a proposed eight-story affordable housing development during a community meeting. ELLEN P. CASSIDY — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Harvard Eyes Ivy Crown

After a decisive Ivy League victory last week over Columbia, No. 20 Harvard (7-1, 4-1 Ivy) will travel to Philadelphia on Saturday to face the UPenn Quakers (4-4, 2-3 Ivy) in the penultimate game of the season. The game is yet another in a series of must-win matchups for Harvard, after an early-season loss to Brown made every game make-or-break for the Crimson the rest of the way. After beating the Lions last week, Harvard and Dartmouth now stand tied atop the league, and the Crimson will almost certainly need to win both of its next games to share or win the conference title outright. Despite the Quakers’ weaker record this season, after a winning season in 2023, they may prove a formidable enemy for the Crimson to conquer before the team can turn its attention to The Game against Yale next week.

Last year’s thrilling triple overtime matchup saw Harvard clinch a share of the Ivy League title via a gutsy trick play in which junior wide receiver Cooper Barkate lofted the title-sealing throw to junior quarterback Jaden Craig in the end zone — a twist on the typical Craig-Barkate roommate connection that Crimson fans have come to know and love over the last two seasons.

UPenn’s backup quarterback, junior Liam O’Brien, put up breakout performances in his first two appearances in Ivy League games the past two weeks, securing the Quakers their only Ancient Eight victories this season. In a 67-49 win over Cornell last week, the highest scoring game in League history, O’Brien broke a school record for touchdown passes in a game with six.

It’s

With O’Brien having the Quakers firing on all cylinders, the Crimson will need to rely on its vaunted pass defense, which is ranked second in the conference in pass yards allowed per game at 211.6. Trying to slow O’Brien will represent a litmus test for Harvard, as it eyes Yale next week and the Bulldogs’ emerging gunslinger Grant Jordan. In an interview, Head Coach Andrew Aurich acknowledged Penn’s new offensive strength and credited his Quakers’ counterpart, Ray Priore, for savvy roster management. “Since this new quarterback has come in, they’ve kind of revamped what they’ve been doing offensively and fitting the scheme to his strengths,” Aurich said, lauding O’Brien. “He’s a really, really good athlete, a dual

Aurich added that the Crimson’s defenders will need to stick to their roles to stop the Quakers’ offensive momentum this week.

“It’s more about 11 guys doing their job every play,” Aurich

positioned to face the Quakers, coming off a dominant showing against Columbia in which the unit held the Lions scoreless until the final two minutes of the game.

Defensive stars like junior safety Ty Bartrum, who leads the Crimson in tackles, and sophomore corner Austin-Jake Guillory, who recorded two interceptions last week and was named Ivy League Defensive Player of the Week, will be crucial in preventing O’Brien and the rest of the offense from exploding again.

UPenn’s defense might pose less of a challenge for the Crim -

incompletions and risky throws on the run last week, Craig has consistently performed well this season. The signal-caller also has a wealth of talent in his receivers room, with Barkate, sophomore tight end Seamus Gilmartin, and senior utility-man Charles DePrima all contributing to a versatile and unpredictable offense.

Aurich said he feels confident in Craig to bounce back this game and execute, based on what he’s seen in practice.

“I know he was not happy with how he played last week, so he’s come out here and had a really, really good week of prac-

“Statistics are statistics,” Aurich said. “I know the type of defense they play. I know what type of players they have. It’ll still be a challenge for us, and we got to make sure that we’re out there executing when we are in those situations.”

threat quarterback.” The Crimson will also need to find a way to stop the Quakers’ star sophomore running back Malachi Hosley, who currently leads the conference with 115.9 rushing yards per game.

said. “If we do that, we’re going to have success. If we have guys who are trying to do something beyond this game, to try to make a play, that’s when we get into problems.”

The Crimson’s defense is well

Barkate also acknowledged that the Crimson’s offense has to clean up its act before facing UPenn, but for him, the goal in the next two games is simple: to win. “We’re close to an Ivy League title, so we got to win out from here,” Barkate said. Barkate and Craig will hope to make the home crowd quake in disappointment when the Crimson kicks off against UPenn in Philadelphia this Saturday, Nov. 16 at noon. Streaming will be available on local NBC Sports affiliates in Boston and Philly, as

Senior wide receiver Scott Woods II carries the ball during the Crimson’s win over Columbia last Saturday. NICHOLAS T. JACOBSSON — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

SPORTS 13

Tough Season Ending

ago, Harvard proudly lifted the Ivy League trophy up after a commanding 3-0 victory over the Columbia Lions in the final. This year, however, it was the Tigers who stood between the Crimson and a return to the championship game.

Harvard women’s soccer (7-4-5, 3-31 Ivy) suffered a tough defeat against the Princeton Tigers (13-4-0, 6-1-0 Ivy)

Facing long odds, Harvard was determined to pull off an upset. The journey began with a challenging trip to New Jersey where Princeton hosted the Ivy League tournament — a venue where Harvard previously suffered a 3-1 defeat earlier in the season.

fouled Princeton junior midfielder Pietra Tordin inside the box. Princeton netted the penalty kick despite junior goalkeeper Rhiannon Stewart guessing the right direction on the shot.

Once again, the Crimson found itself trailing in another contest, but it created promising opportunities to score. Forward Audrey Francois was the driving force in Harvard’s attack as the junior imposed her will, driving through each and every Princeton defender to complete a multitude of outstanding runs for the Crimson. Despite her efforts, the

blocked by the Princeton defense. After one half of play, Harvard trailed Princeton, 1-0. Harvard returned to the field in the second half in dire need of a goal to reinforce a level of confidence to win the game. Princeton had other plans in mind, making a statement goal early in the second half to increase its lead, 2-0 over the Crimson. The fight was still on for the Crimson on the offensive side of the ball, led by Francois. She nearly helped Harvard score its first goal of the contest at the 53 minute mark, but her cross sailed

with a 3-1 victory over the Crimson. In light of the heartbreak of a semifinal exit, tough loss for the team, Harvard women’s soccer can look back on this season with pride. The Crimson’s journey was defined by resilience: injuries, adversity, and tough losses in conference play could not break its spirit. Remarkably, Harvard remained undefeated in non-conference matchups and still secured a spot in the Ivy League tournament, proving its mettle. While its title defense ultimately fell short, the team’s re -

Senior Josefine Hasbo dribbles the ball in a game against Pepperdine earlier this season.

Under Trump, Institutional Neutrality Cannot Mean Inaction

In the wake of President Trump’s re-election, it is time for Harvard to take a long, hard look at institutional neutrality.

After the University’s controversial response to the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, the policy was a worthwhile corrective. But now, as the president-elect has declared his intention to “disband” the Department of Education, conduct mass deportations, and roll back protections for transgender students, Harvard cannot afford to stay silent until something terrible happens.

The University must clarify — explicitly — that institutional neutrality will not equate to institutional inaction in the face of policy harmful to Harvard’s academic mission or community members.

We have already seen signs from President-elect Trump’s staff choices indicating that students on our campus will be impacted. Just days after the election, Trump stated his intention to appoint Tom D. Homan — a Project 2025 contributor, defender of family separations, and supporter of workplace im-

migration raids — as the so-called “border czar.”

While past administrations have deemed some “sensitive” locations — places of worship, universities, public gatherings — as off-limits for immigration enforcement, the Trump Administration has shown a lack of regard for this precedent.

Undocumented students in Harvard’s classrooms could be next. So rather than wait for the incoming administration to target members of our community who lack legal status, Harvard should clarify now that it will protect them using all of its vast resources.

Likewise, the President-elect has made clear his intent to target the rights of transgender students. He ran on the idea of directing the Food and Drug Administration to study whether gender-affirming care increases the risk of mental health conditions, violence, and aggression. If the federal government takes steps that endanger the rights of transgender students at Harvard, our institution must be ready to fight back.

Finally, Harvard can’t achieve its mission if it can’t pay for it. President Trump plans to create an online “American Academy” to compete with existing colleges, funded by taxing “excessively large

private university endowments.” With expected full Republican control of Congress and a lack of political appetite among Democrats to support the Ivy League, this proposal has a real chance of becoming law.

Now, I have no doubt that the University will vocally oppose this endowment tax. If there is anything I’ve learned over the past year, Harvard will always defend its financial interests. But, the University should take a clear and direct approach on any public policy impacting the ability of students and researchers to operate safely and autonomously.

Whether it is attacks on gender-affirming care, threats towards undocumented members of our community, or attempts to cut federal funding for schools deemed to teach “critical race theory,” our University will face threats to its core function in the next four years. Its response can’t just be to keep quiet.

Don’t get me wrong — institutional neutrality has its perks. It is much easier to stay silent than to speak up. But University administrators cannot hide behind the policy when the future of higher education is at stake.

Harvard’s leaders have stated that the University will not issue statements on matters that do not di-

rectly impact its operation. But with so many issues that will directly — and indirectly — impact students on our campus, it is important for Harvard to clarify that it understands the scale of the threat to its mission — and will not stand idly by. Harvard has spoken up many times before. When President Trump tried to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in 2017, University administrators defended the program and wrote letters to both the president and members of Congress to promote its preservation. When the Trump administration seemingly used the Covid-19 pandemic as a guise to revoke the visas of international students, Harvard filed a federal lawsuit and publicly decried the policy. In order to maintain its status as a leader, Harvard cannot abdicate its responsibility to call out attacks on our institution and higher education as a whole. My message to our University leaders: Use the power of neutrality accordingly, but do not allow it to justify your inaction in the face of injustice.

You may have thought there was a tragedy if you were on campus last Wednesday. Some people were crying. Many were devastated. Most were in shock. The cause? President-elect Donald Trump had won back the White House. I voted for Vice President Kamala Harris. I understand people’s disappointment. But the level of immaturity displayed last week, by students and faculty alike, was thoroughly disappointing. In the wake of Election Day, my peers played right into the hands of the right, who revel in nothing more than calling those on the left out-of-touch “liberal snowflakes” who can’t handle the slightest insult to their feelings. Students’ shock that more than half the country prefers Trump to the left-wing orthodoxy that reigns unchallenged in these halls reveals the complete insularity of our campus. The prevailing bewilderment at the results proves that the criticisms of institutions like ours as ivory towers totally removed from the real

world is startlingly accurate.

As many have argued — myself included — Harvard should take steps to remedy this lack of political diversity in order to, if nothing else, broaden the horizons of us inhabitants of the echo chamber. While the University remains so ideologically homogeneous, though, the faculty could at least discharge their pastoral responsibilities by guiding us to maturely process this kind of adversity. They did not. The faculty — a group even more liberal than our student body, according to Crimson surveys — responded even more troublingly. Instead of motivating students to take the results in stride, professors and administrators offered lemon bars, converted their offices into election processing spaces for grieving students, canceled classes, and made quizzes optional.

Frankly, I am embarrassed. Are my peers — legal adults who also happen to be the best and brightest of our generation — really so immature that a personally unfavorable election result impedes their daily functioning?

Evidently, yes.

Some might call these actions from faculty and administrators care for the well-being of students. Others might argue that it’s necessary to validate the emotions of students. I, however, have a much simpler term. I call it coddling. And it’s insulting both that my peers needed it and the University was more than happy to oblige.

Students need to be able to face adversity head on and deal with it — not run away cowering to seek shelter in their safe spaces. Students will not be prepared for the real world if we believe we can be absolved of our responsibilities simply because something happened that we don’t like. Rarely are professionals allowed to cut work and shirk responsibilities because they are in a negative headspace.

Yes, the election results are upsetting. But upsetting things happen to people every single day. We need to be taught how to get through these situations — not to wallow in self-pity.

In an ideal world, students and faculty alike would have been able to retain enough of their composure to power their way through the excruciating stretch between the disappointing — excuse me, terrifying — day

when they learned the results of the election and Veterans Day, a much-needed federal holiday. Oh wait! In Harvard’s eyes, Veterans Day hardly exists. I received no recognition of the holiday from the College or the University aside from a single Instagram post by the former, and, as far as I’m

STAFF EDITORIAL

Trump Is Coming for Higher Ed. Harvard Must Fight Back.

IMMINENT THREAT. With Trump’s reascension to the presidency, higher education is staring down the barrel of a gun, and our University cannot remain silent.

BY THE CRIMSON EDITORIAL BOARD

Uncannily sunny weather shone down on Harvard Wednesday as its professors canceled classes and students reeled from former President Donald Trump’s reelection.

With Trump’s reascension to the presidency, higher education is staring down the barrel of a gun, and — despite its new institutional voice policies — our University cannot remain silent.

The threat Trump poses to Harvard and higher ed is no secret — it’s manifest in his actions last term and explicit in his campaign promises. In 2017, Trump shepherded a massive tax law that taxed university endowments for the first time in American history. Apparently convinced the administration had not kneecapped universities enough, Trump’s veep pick — who delivered a speech in 2021 entitled “The Universities Are the Enemy” — introduced legislation that would have raised that tax from 1.4 to 35 percent.

Project 2025, a behemoth set of policy proposals authored by numerous former Trump staffers, advocates dismantling the Department of Education. And Trump’s compatriots in Congress have probed Harvard for months, threatening its federal funding in a painfully obvious display of political theater.

Last time Trump came for Harvard, the

University fought the administration with full force. After Trump severely restricted immigration from a number of Muslim-majority countries, Harvard joined seven other institutions in filing an amicus brief in a suit against the policy. They took similar action when Trump attempted to revoke student visas during the Covid-19 pandemic. And for years, Harvard valiantly defended its race-conscious admissions practices until the Supreme Court — packed with Trump-appointed justices — struck affirmative action down.

While the University has, rightly, committed itself to institutional neutrality, it cannot allow this policy to prevent it from defending its fundamental principles.

The text of the policy expressly permits the University to speak out when issues affecting its “core function” are threatened. We expect the University to interpret this clause liberally as Trump imperils Harvard in the years to come.

Harvard must fight politicized attacks that jeopardize its endowment and federal funding. They must resist congressional investigations that lambast Harvard for perceived “wokeness” and impede on campus free speech.

More than that, Harvard must promote its students’ wellbeing. As LGBTQ+ freedoms, reproductive rights, and undocumented immigrants come under attack from the White House, Harvard cannot forsake its students for the sake of neutrality. The institutional voice policy’s purpose — to ensure the University is a safe haven for academic freedom — means nothing if Harvard affiliates cannot learn and research without threat to their basic freedoms standing in the way.

Mounting a strong defense against Repub -

lican attacks is not enough: Harvard must recognize why it’s being attacked in the first place. Many people hate Harvard. Securing the University’s interests requires it change their minds.

To successfully combat Trumpian attacks, Harvard must go on the offensive with a charm campaign that shows people the immense social good it — and higher education writ large — continues to create.

While retaining its status as the world’s most cited academic institution, Harvard has given scores of disadvantaged students substantial scholarships and unparalleled resources.

It has added two more Nobel laureates in as many years. And its researchers continued to solve problems across disciplines, from the development of a single-shot Covid-19 vaccine to new machine learning techniques in bioengineering.

Harvard is not alone in the fight for higher education: Other institutions find themselves under congressional scrutiny and subject to endowment taxes too. Joining forces with its peers, Harvard has an opportunity to play a leading role in the defense of higher education — not just for the sake of its survival, or its research, or veritas, but for nothing less than the sake of democracy itself.

–This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

We Led the JFK Jr. Forum. Now More Than Ever, the IOP Must Remain Nonpartisan.

BY ROBERT H. FOGEL AND PETER N. JONES

In an op-ed published on Thursday, Institute of Politics student president Pratyush Mallick argued that the organization must abandon its practice of nonpartisanship. We disagree. Adopting a partisan stance would jeopardize the fundamental mission of the IOP, inhibit necessary conversations, and further isolate students from perspectives held by a majority of Americans.

We joined the IOP’s John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, its flagship speaker program, as freshmen, seeking a space where ideas could be discussed, debated, and challenged respectfully. The conversations with which we engaged provided a means of combating mounting polarization. Three years later, our country — and our campus — face the same challenge. And the Forum’s goal of promoting dialogue offers the same solution. Unfortunately, Mallick’s statement puts this mission in jeopardy.

Under our leadership, the Forum has hosted guests across the political spectrum. At no other Harvard venue will you find former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaking mere days apart. We are proud of this political diversity, especially because it was no small feat. Even before Mallick’s statement, it was difficult to convince conservatives to speak at Harvard. Institutional partisanship would make it impossible.

The community we have built relies on the buy-in of both liberal and conservative thinkers. In our experience, the membership of the IOP has drifted to the left, as Harvard’s conser-

vatives flock to the John Adams Society or the Harvard Republican Club. Some of these individuals have lambasted the IOP as a vehicle for advancing liberal ideology. The IOP president’s explicit endorsement of institution-wide partisanship, which has already attracted national attention, validates their allegations. Despite these trends, the IOP is (was?) a home for many Republican students. During our three years, we have had engaging conversations with members of the IOP’s Conservative Coalition. While we have had disagreements politically, we’ve engaged respectfully. This diversity of thought lies at the IOP’s core, and without it, the organization cannot realize its goals.

These goals include an enduring commitment to nonpartisanship — a value Mallick deemed “no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment.” To the contrary, nonpartisanship remains a tenable — nay, critical — stance. Harvard exists to educate its students, not inculcate them with partisan views. Moreover, nonpartisanship has never been more important to Harvard’s survival. Six congressional committees are currently investigating our university’s federal funding. Between 2023 and 2024, donations to the endowment fell by more than $150 million, with many notable donors withholding funds.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) even privately discussed revoking Harvard’s accreditation altogether with Donald Trump in office. Clearly, further alienating half of the country would exacerbate these crises.

Alongside his calls for a partisan IOP, Mallick cites the need to continue “fostering intellectual vitality.”

What intellectual vitality is he referring to?

The kind where only one party gets to speak?

Where the views of over half of Americans are ignored? One cannot claim free speech if the only speech allowed is the kind one agrees with. And one cannot prepare for a life of public service if one pretends that half the public does not exist. The fact that Trump’s election shocks many of us here at Harvard demonstrates that we have lost touch with the rest of the country — and underscores the need to host speakers of all parties. Trumpism is no longer a fringe movement nor an aberration but the face of the Republican establishment.

We attend a university where only 5.5 percent of last year’s incoming class identified as Republicans, according to The Crimson’s freshman survey. It has become a place where professors cancel class after an upsetting election result. If we do not push ourselves beyond the ideological conformity of Harvard Square, we risk descending from the institution of veritas we claim to be, to the ivory tower many believe we are. The IOP was founded on the principle that students across ideological lines could learn from each other and appreciate the virtue of public service. Abandoning this principle would be disastrous. We applaud IOP Director Setti Warren’s commitment to ideological diversity. Let us hope the next IOP student president agrees.

–Robert H. Fogel ’25 is an Economics concentrator in Mather House and was co-chair of the JFK Jr. Forum Committee for the 2023 calendar year. Peter N. Jones ’25 is a Government concentrator in Mather House and the JFK Jr. Forum Committee’s current director of membership.

COLUMN

BY ALLISON P. FARRELL

The academy is under attack. On Tuesday, former President Donald Trump won not only the Electoral College but also the popular vote. His second term will likely bring the anti-intellectualism which has battered Harvard all year — by the likes of Rep. Elise M. Stefanik ’06 (R-N.Y.), Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), and Christopher F. Rufo — to the White House. We must reckon with the popular mandate of this anti-intellectual movement or we may well see its most dangerous proposals become reality.

Trump has claimed he will fire university accreditors and replace them with his ideological allies. He has proposed the creation of a virtual, federally funded university free of “wokeness.”

Trump’s running mate, Vice President-elect JD Vance, is no better: In 2021, Vance delivered a speech titled “The Universities Are the Enemy,” in which he argued we must “aggressively attack” higher education. Vance has also lauded Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister, Victor Orbán, for kneecapping the nation’s universities.

Colleges and universities are inextricably intertwined with the fabric of a democratic society. Not only are they funded by federal tax dollars — when they enter into public discourse through research and their other vital activities, they play an important role in framing and informing conversations on issues of national importance.

These attacks should worry all of us. For those who already believe in the importance of higher education, it is tempting to dismiss this movement out of hand.

But the popular mandate for anti-intellectualism should force us to ask how the academy must change to become the kind of institution this country needs.

Reckoning with this mandate for anti-intellectualism puts the university on the defensive. The academy must transform how it approaches its work to defend itself and its role in democratic society. As they defend their role in public life, it will be tempting for universities to highlight the less political aspects of their work. Touting developments in the natural and physical sciences or the discovery of new technologies is an easy way to demonstrate how society writ large benefits from the existence of the ivory tower.

But universities must not shy away from the more pressing questions society asks of them. The academy’s more overtly political work is equally important to society, even if that importance is harder for some to see.

This new approach must involve theorizing the alternative to the liberalism that half of America has disregarded. Trump’s election is but one instance of the fall of liberal democracy to right-wing populism.

In Germany, the far-right is gaining power, posing an existential threat to the system of liberal democracy which succeeded fascism in 1945.

Twenty-four years ago in Russia, post-1989 democracy gave way to Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime. Hungarian democracy is currently in the stranglehold of the aforementioned strongman, Orbán. Time and again, the world has watched liberalism fail to fight off right-wing populism. This is not to discount the value of liberalism. It offers ideals that are in many ways noble and just. But before we can realize dreams of justice, we must be in a place to enact it.

The university has theorized a liberalism that continues to fail, but it has yet to generate a viable alternative. This is not, though, a reason to give up on the project of higher learning altogether. Rather, it is a reason for universities to embrace the challenge of theorizing a new political alternative that responds to the country’s call for fundamental change while avoiding the xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and so on of the far right.

Project 2025 proposes an end to federal funding of “area studies” programs because they produce research “counter to [American] interests.” If the right gets its way, universities would do away with their more controversial — yet equally essential — fields of research.

At Harvard, this would likely mean saying goodbye to departments like African and African American Studies, East Asian Studies, and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality — precisely the kind of work that is needed to theorize a more just future. Anti-intellectuals cannot have their way. Universities must continue to fund humanistic and social-scientific research, especially in cases where this scholarship is overtly political. It is time for a new era of thought that can fight back against the far right. Now more than ever, scholars must be vocal and relentless advocates for their most political ideas.

The answer to Trump’s inevitable attacks on higher education is not to become less political but more so. The academy must embark on a new mission: to demonstrate why its ideas should guide us. Researchers in area studies and theories of race and gender, among others, must find new ways to show why the work they do matters.

Scholars of political thought must theorize new ways to bring us to a place where theories of justice can not only be thought but realized. Yes, this new approach will change the nature of the thought the academy produces, but for the better. The academy must defend itself, and the best defense is a strong offense.

–Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House.

RYAN N. GAJARAWALA— CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

Jack F. Griffin ’25 on Cross Sections in Comedy From Visual Art to Data Analytics

BY ANMOL K. GREWAL CONTRIBUTING WRITER

John “Jack” F. Griffin ’25 never dabbled in the art of comedy before his senior year of high school. After a surprising and unexpected defeat in his school’s student government election, his administration pitched him an “insane” idea to stay involved with student leadership — an improvisational comedy troupe.

“I got to make up funny things on the spot in front of my entire high school, which was like nightmare fuel for a high schooler. And not only that, lead a group — but I agreed to do it. So I did some research into what it was and what it took, and started a group,” he said. While passionate about many different groups on campus, Griffin, a senior at Harvard, has been in the comedy scene for quite some time. He has been involved with Harvard’s Immediate Gratification Players for four years and serves as co-president of the Harvard Undergraduate Stand-Up Comic Society — abbreviated HUSUCS, and pronounced “HU sucks.”

“When I came here, I immediately started looking for different comedy opportunities on campus,” he said.

Griffin has made significant advancements in comedic adventures of his own — he has recently become involved with the theater

scene, not only as an actor in a few different shows with the HarvardRadcliffe Dramatic Club, but bringing his own comedy shows to the Loeb Drama Center as well.

The Loeb Experimental Theater, also known as the “Loeb Ex,” is a black box theater inside the Loeb Drama Center where many student plays, musicals, and dance shows from the HRDC and other theater groups have a home. It is hardly known for hosting stand-up comedy shows, but through an extensive process and endless communication with the HRDC, Griffin was able to bring an original comedy show, “Speakeasy: The Faire,” to life.

“‘Speakeasy’ was an opportunity for stand-up comics that have been talking about, ‘Oh, I want to take it further. I want to have more stage time,’” he said. “I’m like, ‘All right, great. We all want to do this.

Someone just has to do the work.’”

Griffin first held “Speakeasy” in his dorm, attracting a “huge turnout” of about 80 people. When he heard that the Loeb Ex had a oneweek “dead space” during which no productions were scheduled, he decided to bring the show there.

Griffin is passionate about the arts at Harvard. Through the comedy show, he aimed not only to bring the many different art groups on campus together in one place, but allow people who don’t get the chance to showcase their talents to have a stage on which to put their work out into the world.

“Being able to do [Speakeasy] in the Loeb Ex was an awesome opportunity to connect with the theater world — the HRDC, which I was now connected with — and show them the comedy world, and show the comedy world the theater world,” he said.

Griffin combined many different disciplines in “Speakeasy,” devoting a display space to pottery and paintings from local artists while incorporating musical performances and a science experiment.

“As my friend Payton Thompson put it, it works because comedy is such an accessible art form. So, with other art forms, sometimes you need some background to understand it. But the hope is that everyone can appreciate a good joke even if they don’t know the work that goes behind it,” he said.

There is still more comedy in the future for Griffin. He is currently working on a comedic play that he co-wrote with one of his closest friends, Mack D.W. Webb ’25. “Jest the Way You Are” is the brainchild of Griffin’s humor, which revolves around his “love of people” and making unique characters, and Webb’s knowledge of comedic tropes and ability to reshape them to fit a specific vision.

“This is something we’ve been working on for a little bit over a year now, with retooling the script and building this world of just trying to make the funniest show that we can,” he said.

The production plans to run at the Loeb Ex from Dec. 5 to Dec. 8.

Though comedy has evolved into a very central part of Griffin’s efforts on campus, he is also endlessly curious about and involved in sustainability both on and off campus. He helped lead sustainability conferences as far as Indonesia as part of the education program of the Harvard Undergraduate Clean Energy Group.

Griffin came into Harvard with aspirations to become a sustainability engineer, but a change of plans has directed his education toward data analytics and applied mathematics — with a serving of Theater, Dance, and Media on the side.

“People always think it’s funny when I tell them I’m an Applied Math and TDM major because they’re so different. But for me, they’re just two different ways to understand the world and explain them,” he said.

Griffin emphasizes the different ways in which comedy and data analysis have changed his way of viewing the world. For him, data analytics brings out the importance of the work that one’s subconscious puts in when figuring out the informational inputs that enter the brain.

“People value logic — like, ‘Are you taking this direct line of thinking?’ — but your subconscious is developed by your lifetime of human experiences. So trusting your

instincts is trusting the millions of little things in your brain that are telling you what has happened before and what you should do,” he said.

Connecting the importance of the subconscious to the arts, Griffin said that aspiring artisst simply need to trust the instincts that they spend countless hours developing. Improvisational theater has helped him trust his instincts in that it forces him to drop his filter and trust what he is about to say.

“You’ve been in real life situations before, and you’ve known how to react. If you’re just trying to recreate them, trust how you want to react, because you have those millions of little things in your brain,” he said.

The value that Griffin holds most dear when creating art is being people-driven. To him, comedy is a tool that has the power to highlight the importance of a good story. His style, therefore, is abundant with unique characters from all walks of life. For Griffin, comedy is a way to give love to people and make them feel joyful in life.

“I am driven by my love of people

— because that’s all there is, when you get down to it, in this world — and looking out for people and also giving really true, lovely depictions of people on stage,” he said. “So, that’s why a lot of my writing is drawn from the comedy of people because they’re so funny and weird, and I think they’re so lovely.”

‘Horizon’ Review: AADT’s Show Struggles to Stick the Landing

fashion of South Asia.

Walking into Lowell Lecture Hall, replete with the shrieks and laughs of a rowdy audience, no one would expect the Harvard Asian American Dance Troupe’s latest staging of “Horizon” to carry itself with anything resembling classical poise.

But with a brief dimming of the lights and the entrance of the Flagship dance, “Horizon” immediately demonstrated the puzzling jux-

tapositions that would become the pattern of the night. A heritage performance rooted in traditional Asian dance styles, the Flagship dance embodied the scenes of an outdoor harvest with an elegance and grace that ebbed and flowed much like the music to which it was set.

Yet anybody expecting this style to continue throughout the show was rudely surprised upon the arrival of the next performance, “wat3rfall.” A b-boy-inspired dance influenced heavily by the funk rhythms

of its accompaniment, it used fluid dance moves interspersed with manic moments to evoke a waterfall. But even this performance was followed by another stylistic change — indicated by the switch from black to white outfits for the next performance, “XOXO, 2000.”

Inspired by various eras of K-pop, the dance was far more energetic and vigorous than the previous performances. These dances were a nice segue into the catchiness of “Like Clockwork,” which journeyed through the dances, music, and

One of the best performances of the first act came in “fleeting snowfall,” which carried itself with an infectious enthusiasm that made it instantly enjoyable. The performance’s cutesiness, a style not previously explored in the show, fit perfectly with the love songs to which the routine was set. Despite being a larger group, their cohesiveness and excellent usage of stage space made it one of the most compelling performances.

The final performance of the

first act, “IDOL,” summed up the first act nicely with its combination of the slow moves of the earlier dances and the energy of the latter performances, a high note that brought good dancing and music together to tie up the first act.

But it was after this point in the show that the problems with “Horizon” began. Should it have been a single act, “Horizon” would have succeeded in AADT’s goal of demonstrating the diversity of Asian culture through dance. However, in the second act, the most significant weaknesses of the show become increasingly difficult to ignore. With every performance that passed, it seemed that instead of developing a unique style for each of the performances, many of the dances were simply the same few dance moves rearranged to give the impression of novelty.

This is not to say there was nothing original in the second act. Rather, the seductive and exotic moves incorporated into “Rapture” gave it a salaciousness that set it apart from the rest of the show, and the company’s dance, despite being the efforts of largely amateur dancers, embraced the simplicity of their routine.

Yet many of the other performances did not capture this same zeal. While the hip-hop-inspired moves of the first act’s “wat3rfall” were engaging, the same moves rehashed in the second act’s “hustle” came off as uninspired. To make matters worse, the penultimate performance, “wow, that’s hot,” was billed as a celebration of femininity and sexuality — its cabaret form should have been a liberation of the female form in dance. Instead, it simply demonstrated the limits of the show’s choreography, another

variant of the same moves that had been worn out over the duration of performances.

But the biggest issue with “Horizon” was that it tried to be too many things at once — a dance performance, a sentimental reunion of alumni and current members, and also a storyline in which a Chinese farmer is transported to the modern day. With few transitions between these various sections, it was often disorienting to follow along. There was no better example of this than the board’s small ceremony prior to the final performance of the night, “BEYOND,” which did little other than to sap the energy that had built up throughout the second act. As for the performance itself, being that of AADT’s competition team, it had high standards to meet, but the innovative choreography and fervor of each of the performers more than rose to the occasion. It was the sort of performance that the second act should have embodied.

AADT’s “Horizon” was by no means a bad show — it soared in its highest moments, of which there were many. But it was simply too long and too meaninglessly complex. Its storyline bordered on the cringeworthy, and its dances, no matter how good they may have been, were repetitive. The show itself felt more like a greatest hits album — in no small part due to the presence of the alumni in the audience — rather than a substantial artistic contribution that could stand on its own. Yet while the lack of artistic direction created a muddled show that lumbered to its evermore-appealing conclusion, the dancers’ passion imbued it with a spirit that left the audience wanting more.

Comedian John “Jack” F. Griffin ’25 brought the stand-up show “Speakeasy: The Faire” to the Loeb Ex. MELISSA C. SUQUISUPA — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER

ON CAMPUS

Alden & Harlow Review: Bold and Fresh

BY MAKENNA J. WALKO CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Michael Scelfo — the chef behind Cambridge institutions Alden & Harlow and Waypoint, in addition to other establishments — founded the restaurant with the concept of home in mind. Inspired by family recipes, Scelfo seeks to instill the warmth and intimacy of familystyle dining into the menu and character of the restaurant. This emphasis on hospitality and personal care is evident in the exemplary service at Al-

den & Harlow. The servers are attentive and knowledgeable about the menu, and the plates are delivered at thoughtfully spaced intervals throughout the night so each dish has time to shine. The restaurant’s ambiance also underscores this sense of familiarity, balancing warm, rustic decor with modern touches to create a contemporary and homey atmosphere. The menu features a creative twist on classic American cuisine. Alden & Harlow boasts a particularly robust selection of vegetarian offerings, which showcase fresh, thoughtfully sourced ingredients, in addition to a handful of solid options for meat lovers. Although the restau-

rant certainly caters to the more adventurous eater with its bold flavors and seasonally informed dishes, there’s something on the

Among the restaurant’s most popular dishes are the basil pasta, uniquely accented with a carrot bolognese, and the grilled rosemary focaccia.

menu for everyone to enjoy.

Of the meat-centered dishes, the crispy pork belly and grilled

NY strip stand out. The pork belly is balanced with grits and plums caramelized in rich honey, and the steak is enhanced with a decadent red wine and butter fusion. Among the restaurant’s most popular dishes are the basil pasta, uniquely accented with a carrot bolognese, and the grilled rosemary focaccia, which comes with sharp pickled rhubarb, mouthwatering honey whipped ricotta, and delicate English peas. All of Alden & Harlow’s platters are designed to be shareable, reiterating the restaurant’s mission of promoting connection through communal dining.

The dessert menu, although limited, is equally delicious. The smoked chocolate bread pudding

is a highlight, in addition to the seasonal special: spiced pumpkin cake. The pumpkin cake, like so many of Alden & Harlow’s dishes, enhances a traditional recipe with surprising flavors. The cake comes accompanied with cranberries and cajeta, making for a unique twist on a beloved autumnal treat. This tendency to combine the familiar with the unexpected is both Alden & Harlow’s greatest strength and perhaps its singular limitation. To picky eaters, the restaurant’s bold reimaginings may at times be too much. For those looking to push their culinary boundaries and enjoy fresh, local fare, there is no better place. But for diners who prefer

more conventional dishes, Alden & Harlow’s daring combinations may not be worth the price tag. Since its founding ten years ago, Alden & Harlow has established itself as a Cambridge staple. Overall, this reputation is well-earned. Just a severalminute walk from Harvard Yard, the restaurant’s focus on bringing people together makes it the perfect place to turn strangers into friends, and friends into family.

makenna.walko@thecrimson.com

3.5 STARS

‘The Third Gilmore Girl’ Review: Raw and Brilliantly Crafted

BY AIDEN J. BOWERS CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Dancer and actress Kelly Bishop launches into her 80th year with “The Third Gilmore Girl,” an inspiring memoir detailing her life on and off the stage — and screen. She covers her childhood, her career, and even her romantic endeavors — culminating in a behind-the-scenes look at not only her impressive career but her beautiful love story with her late husband, Lee Leonard. Bishop describes the transitions and highlights in her career, including the conception of “A Chorus Line” and her time working on “Gilmore Girls,” with astute attention to detail and an openness characteristic of a catch-up cof-

fee between old friends. This balance is sure to delight both longtime fans and fresh faces. The memoir’s raw, familiar tone is one of its highlights. Bishop shares, with utter frankness, her “list of times when I really disappointed myself,” as she calls it, always choosing the truth and leaning headfirst into the most difficult times in her life. Her writing never distances itself from its readers, entrusting them with her innermost thoughts. This authenticity renders the book’s most heartwarming moments — like Bishop’s deep admiration and respect for her mother — all the more joyful. At the same time, the memoir manages to wring out a tear or two. Her writing conveys a deep humanity, providing a glimpse into her

mind as she deals with grief and loss. These feelings ooze into her prose, concentrated into powerful lines that sit with the reader. One of the most stunning examples is when she describes her refusal to use terms like “gone” or “died” after the loss of her late husband, poignantly stating, “It was, and will always be, ‘Lee Left.’”

“The Third Gilmore Girl” is as stunning as it is intimate. Bishop’s informal, colloquial tone does not hinder her exquisite detail work. She recounts her experiences with extraordinary specificity, like her guest appearance on “Hawaii Five-0,” where she was “introduced to and fell in love with papayas.” Paired with the frequent references she makes to global events like the Covid-19

pandemic and 9/11, these details help to develop Bishop’s life as both a personal narrative and a historical account. Her memoir, at times, reads as a period piece, providing a thoughtful and provoking portrait of the many eras that she has lived through. Structurally, Bishop’s memoir is well-crafted and focused. While she bounces from vignette to vignette, particularly in the first half of the book, several throughlines keep the narrative grounded. One such theme is marriage — from her parents’ marriage and her first marriage that ended in divorce to her final, happy marriage to Lee Leonard Another common throughline is the “I wish” motif. At each turn, she notes a pattern of her wishing for an opportunity, or a call,

or a change — and it happens every time. While these vignettes from her life are mostly well-structured and logical, at times the narrative becomes bogged down by its atemporality. Her path to the Screen Actors Guild, for example, doesn’t fit well within the anecdotes in antecedent and subsequent chapters, leaving doubt about its place in the chronology of her storied career. Still, the occasional confusion is easy to ignore against the backdrop of witty prose.

A collection of photos complement the memoir, showcasing everything from “My [Bishop’s] senior picture, 1962” to “Invitation from Joseph Papp to the final performance of ‘A Chorus Line,’ 1990.” This was a delightful and

‘Punish’ Single Review: A Prelude to Penance

BY MELINA FONSECA CRIMSON STAFF WRITER

Opening with an incessant and unnerving door creak, Ethel Cain’s newest single is undeniably raw, gritty, and perverse. Saturated in her distinctive sound — haunting vocals, disturbing themes of salvation and sexual deviance, and a guitar riff that subtly sneaks up on you — it’s hard to imagine anyone else could have written and pro-

duced it. “Punish,” the first introduction to Cain’s highly anticipated sophomore album “Perverts,” explores what it means to be righteous under God, despite committing unforgivable sin. Is one a victim, tainted by nature’s poison, or are they held responsible and therefore condemned by their actions? It delves into the complexity of moral reckoning, setting the stage for a project that promises to unflinchingly examine the blurred lines between personal blame and divine judgment. After her success with “Preacher’s Daughter,” especially on her most commercially palatable track “American Teenager,” audiences would expect Cain to lean into broader mainstream appeal. However, this new era evidently signals the bold continuation of her uncompromising vision, without concern for conventional boundaries. Regardless of the song being six minutes and 47 seconds long, its lyrics are elegantly spare and largely driven by the perfectly paced, developing production. As a piano’s bare notes ring out in the first verse, she sings, “I give in so easy / Nature chews on me,” and a few lines later, “It has always been this way / It has always been this way.” This sentiment of surrender lays the foundation for the song’s intimate study of personal culpability versus existential victimhood.

personal touch that made readers feel as though they were on a guided tour of Bishop’s personal photo album. Unfortunately, the photos are placed jarringly in the middle of random chapters, interrupting the flow of the memoir and doing a great disservice to the fascinating images on glossy print. Bishop’s new memoir is nothing short of extraordinary. “The Third Gilmore Girl” offers an unparalleled intimacy and personal perspective into the life of the multi-talented actress, providing a direct glimpse into her thoughts and feelings. The high-quality and authentic prose is sure to leave the reader wishing for more.

aiden.bowers@thecrimson.com

The chorus and second verse are sung amidst the same sonic backdrop of the chilling piano. Yet, once she sings, “Only God knows, only God would believe / That I was angel, but they made me leave,” it is clear that the track was meant to culminate in this moment. It reveals something more sinister about the song as the guitar is suddenly presented, with significant resonance and occasional abrasive screeches. This peak subtly resembles “Ptolemaea” and “August Underground” off of her previous album, with their same undercurrent of self-destruction, communicated through a growing, eerie tenseness. What begins as a hushed confessional transforms into a suffocating cathedral of anguish, providing a raw glimpse into what the release of “Perverts” will have to offer in the winter.

Since its founding 10 years ago, Alden & Harlow has established itself as a Cambridge staple. MELISSA C. SUQUISUPA — CRIMSON PHOTOGRAPHER