The Cover
I was so pleased to see that on your cover for July-August, Harvard “is not pulling its punches” against Trump’s illegal, unconstitutional, and corrupt actions. Veritas will win this boxing match!
James Berkman ’77, J.D. ’82
Boston
When the August issue of Harvard Magazine arrived in my mailbox, I did a second take when I saw the cover and shook my head. I don’t know if framing the fight Harvard is involved in with the Trump administration in this manner is arrogant, blind to what’s at stake here, or just plain stupid. But I hope you understand that if Harvard views itself as being in the ring with Trump, it’s a fight you are going to lose, however many times you block him in the lower courts. I gather there are discussions in process to try and figure out a way through this other than in the ring. That’s smart, as smart as your cover is dumb, because as many have learned to their cost, Trump doesn’t play by the Queensberry Rules.
David McDonald, LL.M. ’80
Great Barrington, Mass.
The opposing boxing gloves on the July-August cover seem to give credibility to Trump’s position, with his glove in red-and-white stripes and with a solid blue wrist. I am sure Trump would be happy with his glove in all gold. That represents his values. Veritas should be across Harvard’s glove to remind everyone that “Truth” is the foundation of all knowledge.
David Souers, M.Arch. ’82
Friendship, Me.
Portraying the Trump administration’s attacks on Harvard University as a boxing match between Harvard and the United States demonstrates a possibly fatal misunderstanding of cultural and political divisions in the United States. Harvard is not fighting the “United States of America.” Its struggle is with MAGA—a political entity working to destroy or pervert education in our country. Harvard is rightly leading the fight for education free of political influence. Most Americans support that. Don’t wrap MAGA in the American flag.
Ivar Nelson ’63
Moscow, Idaho
Just wanted to say we absolutely love the cover of this month’s Harvard Magazine! We stand by you!
Barbara Karp
My compliments to the authors and editors responsible for the letters and obituaries. I marvel at the intelligence and accomplishments set out in both. Also, I enjoyed the cover of the July-August issue. Hubris has never been rationed at Harvard and is on full display on the cover. It caused a robust laugh.
Kathleen Heirich Casey ’59
Pearland, Tex.
I hate the graphic showing this as a boxing contest with Trump wearing America’s colors. I am fully behind Harvard here and believe Harvard is standing up for true American values.
John Willoughby ’90
Wayzara, Minn.
I love this cover!!! On point to say the least.
John De Piero, A.L.M. ’82
Boston
For some alumni of a certain era, the boxing gloves and color scheme conspicuously cast the Trump administration in the roles of Apollo Creed and Rocky Balboa, and Harvard in the role of Ivan Drago from 1985’s Rocky IV. I’m guessing that was not the illustrator and editors’ intended effect? On the bright side, Rocky and Drago seemingly resolved the Cold War in one climactic boxing match, which perhaps bodes well for bringing this latest episode of academia-government conflict to a swift conclusion.
Charles G. Kels ’00
San Antonio, Tex.
The boxing gloves depicts Harvard fighting the USA. Intended? Perhaps so, as President Trump was elected by a majority—electoral college and popular. It’s worthwhile to reflect (and I hope you do) on why there is a boxing match. I think Feyerabend would demand it—especially with the apparent assumption that taxpayers fund research but cannot question the research, the indirect costs, or the governance.
James Locke
Montgomery, Ala.
This cover is a misguided attempt to characterize, perhaps tongue in cheek, what is happening. There is a touch of arrogance in this depiction, which does Harvard no credit. And especially so considering the piece about the fall of authoritarian states or movements.
Harvard has been dilatory on antisemitism. Even if Harvard prevails in the courts on some of the extreme demands from the federal government, which I’m sure it will, Harvard will lose support from a very large percentage of American people and from many politicians even after this administration is just a memory. Remember, while we all value highly the fruits of Harvard’s research, or most of it, Harvard has no inherent right to federal money. And Harvard’s combative approach puts that in jeopardy.
Robert Riter ’70, A.M. ’74
Naples, Fla.
“It’s on”: Harvard VERITAS opposing Trump VANITAS!
Serge Gravel, LL.M. ’74
Paris, France
I, for one, was stunned to see the cover of the July-August 2025 edition. Whether you intend it or not, that cover suggests enthusiasm for a battle. It suggests a “bring it on” attitude. I believe it’s extraordinarily unwise and unrepresentative of the views of the Harvard community generally.
I am one of the thousands of Harvard Law School alumni who have signed letters asking President Garber to stand firm against the Trump administration. But that is different than intentionally poking the Trump administration. There is no reason to do that. Of course you should cover the controversy, but to suggest enthusiasm for the controversy—not helpful.
Harvard is known as a place of smart people. In my view, your cover was the opposite of smart.
Stanley G. Fendley, J.D. ’91
Falls Church, Va.
I chuckled when I gazed at the latest Harvard Magazine cover. Brilliant! It captures exquisitely the firmness so ably displayed by President Garber in refusing to bow down to unlawful and unethical demands from the White House.
Keep the faith, Harvard Magazine,
Dennis E. Gale, Ed.M. ’69
Burlingame, Cali.
I think this is a ridiculous symbol. It suggests there are rules governing the contest to which both sides, boxers, will abide. This isn’t true here.
It also implies that both sides have come equally determined or willing to have a fight. This clearly also isn’t true. Just as untrue is the implicit assumption that there will be a fair and justifiable way for the two sides to agree as to who has fairly won the contest.
Equally implausible is any assumption that the parties are fighting with equal weapons.
Finally, the use of a boxing contest as a way of characterizing the opposing sides of Harvard and the Trump administration seems to be a measure to downgrade both the intellectual and political/social issues, as well as any moral values that might be relevant.
Napoleon Williams ’64
New York, N.Y.
The “boxing gloves” cover trivializes the conflict between Harvard and the Trump administration. The cover implies that, like an interesting sporting event, the contest of wills over academic freedom is a good show, one we might enjoy as a spectator. Actually, it is painful to watch for anyone who loves higher education in America. Moreover, the two gloves suggest that the contest is equal. In fact, the powers of the federal government—to withdraw funding, to intimidate, to investigate and sanction—are far greater than those common sense, respect for the law, and decency can easily muster to oppose it. I despair of the outcome, even if the courts continue to protect the University from some negative actions.
Rather than the misleading cover you chose, I would have preferred a depiction of the jackboot of authoritarianism poised above the gates to Harvard Yard, a dark tableau conveying the true nature of Trump’s action.
Rodney Page, J.D. ’71
Reston, Va.
I think it’s unwise to have a cover pitting Harvard against the current presidential administration. It smacks of political bias, and why would Harvard want to alienate any administration? The University—which has an overwhelmingly politically left-leaning faculty—is already struggling to embrace viewpoint diversity on campus, and your cover certainly didn’t help matters.
Kristen Walsh ’96
Mendham, N.J.
Harvard Magazine’s article on its disputes with the chief executive of the U.S. government was informative (“The stakes are so high that we have no choice,” July-August 2025), but the publication showed poor judgment in representing Trump’s boxing gloves with a stars-and-stripes pattern, to contrast it with Harvard’s crimson. This visual device appears to confirm the notion that Trump speaks and acts on behalf of “America,” and that Harvard is anti-American.
It is now more important than ever to realize that a nation is not solely, nor even primarily, embodied by its head of government, but by its people, culture, and institutions. Of the latter, Harvard University is one of our nation’s greatest. Therefore, it may as well be Harvard’s boxing glove that our flag’s colors adorned, not Trump’s. Trump’s glove, meanwhile, might better have been depicted in black and gold, to call to mind not the nation whose culture and institutions he’s doing so much to undermine, but the monstrous edifices to himself that he’s put up in so many cities.
Alexander Dillon, Ph.D. ’03
Cedarhurst, N.Y.
Perhaps far more apt would be the red, white, and blue glove sporting Uncle Sam and the crimson with “Non-Compos Mentis” replacing “Veritas.”
Operating in a nation founded on life, liberty, and property, including capitalism under the rule of law, the institution’s notorious, closed “learning” environment with illegal, anti-merit, racist quota admissions and DEI hiring is just the start.
Does the prominent, excruciatingly benighted institution expect Uncle Sam to continue to twiddle thumbs while crucial national, lucrative research contracts and grants subsidize the lefty-jihadist, monstrous death-to-America “assault on our American heritage and Western civilization itself”—including inevitable creeping rot in the research functions as well?
It is likely best not to be “on” for long.
Paul B. Steiger, M.B.A. ‘71
Harvard’s Standoff
The latest issue of Harvard Magazine could not have arrived at a more fitting moment. The article subtitled “Your guide to Harvard’s standoff with the government” (page 22) is outstanding—clear, principled, and deeply resonant with this political moment. The Washington Post has published an op-ed by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, which appears to formalize the Trump administration’s campaign against Harvard under the guise of immigration enforcement. Given the coordinated nature of this public relations offensive, it is crucial that readers have easy access to your article, which frames the stakes far more accurately and thoughtfully than the administration’s talking points.
Ethan S. Burger ’81
Washington, D.C.
Harvard informs us of the cancellation of 1,000 grants and contracts, which threatens to halt progress in causes as worthy as sudden infant death. But the consequences, even if unfortunate, are irrelevant. When a hospital’s failure to meet the appropriate standard of medical care leads to poor patient outcomes, it may be required to pay significant judgments or settlements, and it is inevitable that the expenditure will lower the standard of care for other patients, but this is not a valid defense of malpractice lawsuits.
Nancy Helene Elizabeth Diamond ’82
Free Union, Va.
I was an international student at Harvard over a decade ago, as were a big chunk of my section mates, representing the whole world from China to Ghana and Mauritius. Harvard is one of the world’s top brands and top American cultural exports, at the same level as Nike or Coca-Cola. It’s idiotic for an administration to handicap one of America’s most iconic brands. I’m proud of President Garber, and for the first time in years, I’m proud to be seen in Harvard swag. The name used to connote privilege, but now it’s become a beautiful symbol of freedom, resistance, and TRUTH.
Lisa Kostova, M.B.A. ’09
Portland, Oreg.
Many of your articles in your July-August issue remind me of Maslow’s law: if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Harvard is trying only intellectual tools to “fix Harvard.” The problem is not reducing conflict or hatred. Nor is it to engender kumbaya moments between Hamas supporters and Zionists—that is close to impossible. What is needed, and can be immediately applied, is more robust enforcement of rules of behavior regarding free speech.
Charles Block, A.M. ’51
Aventura, Fla.
At my 45th reunion at Harvard Business School in June, Goldston professor of business administration Deepak Malhotra gave a fascinating talk, titled “Your Personal All-Purpose AI Negotiation Adviser.” At the end, he invited us to test-drive a new AI negotiation agent he is working on. I told the AI that as “an advisor to President Garber,” I wanted to help Harvard settle its argument.
The agent’s conclusion? “Harvard faces a critical strategic challenge where the institution’s preferred approach of litigation to preserve the status quo may not align with the legal and political realities of the situation. The strategy should acknowledge that Harvard is operating from a position where its underlying legal compliance is questionable, while seeking to preserve its institutional integrity and financial stability.”
The agent’s remarkably cogent advice convinced me of AI’s exciting potential. May our beloved, beleaguered Harvard heed its homegrown AI agent’s advice—and convince anew both us alumni and the nation that it is still worthy of our support.
Thomas H. Pyle, M.B.A.’80
Princeton, N.J.
During my time at Harvard, I had classmates from all over the world. The wide-ranging perspectives and lived experiences reflected within my classes helped shape the incredible experience I enjoyed as a member of the Harvard community. Which is why the Trump administration’s latest attacks on Harvard are so disheartening. The attorney in me can’t help but be gripped by the current legal battle, which hinges on core constitutional concepts. The student part of me is also watching the Harvard litigation, though. As a [lifelong] learner and a recent graduate, I believe in Harvard’s mission, and I care deeply about the Harvard community. Truth is not just a value to which I subscribe, it is an imperative.
Lindsay Bennett, A.L.M. ’25
Sacramento, Cal.
To the monotonous messaging that “research is good, fund our research,” the latest issue of the magazine has added the argument that Harvard’s independence must be maintained. While for its first 300 years, Harvard was truly independent of the federal government, it is certainly not anymore. Since World War II brought the University its first wave of federal funding, it has ballooned and morphed its focus, from hundreds of millions for defense to billions for health research.
If the only tenet is that health research is good and the federal government should fund it, what should be the limiting principle in times of budget stress? A thoughtful approach might begin with the level of research funding in the mid-1990s, when our health as a nation was arguably better than it is today.
Surely Harvard can articulate a more sophisticated spending rationale for the federal government than “research is good.” Short of that, the University should stop waving the bloody shirt of independence with one hand while holding its hand out with the other.
Craig Chambers, M.B.A. ’87
Saint Johns, Fla.
“Celebrating Integrity”? (July-August, page 38) I don’t see the integrity. I see a lot of references to “resistance.” I hear a silence where you fail to address what got you into this mess to begin with: Jew hatred. Not protest against war or violence. Not an honest assessment of facts. Not a megalomaniacal populist, but an orthodoxy of liberalism that goose-steps no less proudly. My people are afraid to attend your institution. They are afraid to walk in graduation. They are afraid to walk the quad. I can’t sensibly send my kids there (assuming I’d find a way to pay for it). You seem to have turned your back on Jews and in the end, Harvard will be worse for it.
I admire Dr. Garber’s courage to fight the Trump administration, but he is missing the point. Illegal or not…[t]hose sanctions were an opportunity for deep introspection. You did it, you will tell me, and you awoke secure that no painful change need occur. What a waste! Integrity, indeed!
Carl Aschkenasi ’95 M.D. ’01
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Antisemitism
Harvard is wrong to fight the U.S. government’s efforts to root out antisemitism on campus and beyond. Harvard was unable and unwilling to do so from October 7, 2023, onward and for as far back as one can look before then. Harvard must acknowledge its shortcomings and cooperate fully with the government on these important reforms. The future of the institution is at stake.
Howard M. Sipzner, M.B.A. ’87
Lido Beach, N.Y.
I have just completed reading the University’s final report on antisemitism and I find it pathetically unconvincing in demonstrating that Harvard intends to do anything to end the antisemitism prevalent on campus.
The University report continually falls back on “free speech” to justify taking no direct action against anti-Jewish elements on campus. The U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from impairing the free speech of Americans—it most certainly does not require private institutions (like Harvard) to protect the free speech of students or anyone else. Harvard can adopt whatever restrictions on free speech it feels are necessary to enhance students’ educational experience. The University can—and MUST—immediately ban the use of phrases threatening, directly or indirectly, the life of any Jew anywhere in the world (like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”) and ban hostile and aggressive language (or conduct) toward any Jewish student. Adopt a 100 percent expulsion rule for speech violations—with no exceptions. Abandon the University’s unconvincing attempt to find equivalency between anti-Jewish prejudice and anti-Muslim prejudice. The pablum of equivalency simply provides another excuse for doing nothing. For Harvard, that time has passed.
Mark Rutzick, J.D. ’73
Reston, Va.
The recent demonstrations about Gaza and the reaction were less an exhibition of limitations on free speech than an exercise in competing propaganda. Short phrases that can be repeated with enthusiasm, such as “from the river to the sea,” espoused by hostile governments or groups like Hamas, are closer to propaganda. The Founding Fathers may have been thinking of the well-argued Federalist Papers as an example of free speech, but were also familiar with violent, tendentious speech (see what John Adams said about Thomas Jefferson and vice versa). The anti-Israel protests were not a form of nuanced political speech, since Hamas called explicitly for another extermination of Jews.
I was in Dunster House during the closing of the College in both 1969 and 1970. As I recall, the free speech of protesters was composed in part of chants (like “Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, Southeast Asia’s going to win!”), nonnegotiable demands, and claims to speak for the masses (language redolent of the old left and inaccurate). Harvard as an institution did not respond well to protests in 1968, and it is hard to see how a university can respond with propaganda on both sides.
James Kardon ’71
Scarsdale, N.Y.
It strains credulity to believe the Harvard Divinity School did not realize that its chosen Commencement speaker, Zehra Iman, would [lie] to the administration about her intention to deliver a Commencement speech without Jew hatred. (“Harvard Commencement Speaker Lauds Classmate Who Assaulted Israeli Student—To Whoops and Cheers From the Crowd,” The Washington Free Beacon, May 30, 2025).
The fact that hundreds of her classmates cheered her…demonstrates that the Harvard Divinity School has devolved into an institution in which only mendacity and Jew hatred are cherished values. The Harvard Divinity School has completely rejected the wisdom and prescience of America’s greatest divinity student, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said in Cambridge, Massachusetts in October 1967: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you’re talking antisemitism.”
Richard Sherman
Margate, Fla.
I think we need to deeply reflect on how Harvard protects all the minorities (people of color, Asians, LGBTQ [people], etc.) but Jews.
At Harvard it is no longer safe to study if you are a Jew and that’s something more “problematic,” unless you align with antisemitic thoughts.
Harvard, you failed to protect us or to accept us in the same way you accept other minorities. What a shame.
Eyal Szewkis, Ed.M. ’16
Santiago, Chile
I recently asked a trusted friend to put aside feelings about Trump and look solely at the actions taken, and not taken, by Harvard regarding antisemitism. The response was telling: although there was plenty of criticism of Trump, nothing could be said to defend the University itself.
In 2015, members of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) nailed eviction notices to the doors of Jewish students at Harvard. SJP explained that they wanted Jews to feel the way they believe Palestinians to feel. Before we even get to the blatant antisemitism of this comparison under the IHRA definition, we should ask: Why did SJP know who the Jews on campus were? And how did it compile a list of their addresses?
So, was I surprised by the vicious Jew hatred displayed on campus after 10/7? Of course not. When Rabbi [David] Wolpe left the antisemitism panel saying his presence was futile—I sighed. When Ruth Wisse detailed the embrace of Jew hatred she witnessed in her time at Harvard—I shrugged. Not because I am indifferent—no, I care quite passionately about this issue. I sighed and shrugged because this is the path Harvard has chosen.
My Jewish family and I no longer visit campus when we are in the Boston area. It is clear that we are not welcome, and likely not even safe, at the school. What was once a treasured connection for me has become a source of deep shame. Harvard does not represent me, and I certainly do not share its ill-conceived, anti-Western, Jew-hating values.
Cary S. Gunther ’96
New York, N.Y.
I recently attended a reunion at Harvard.
By what process did Harvard come to believe that men can menstruate? The men’s bathroom at Lamont Library includes mini pads, tampons, and related disposal receptacles.
By what process did Harvard buy into the COVID scare? There was plenty of evidence at the time that pushing the vaccine and shutting down society was the wrong approach.
By what process did Harvard admit such a disproportionate number of antisemitic and anti-Zionist students and faculty?
What is wrong with the Harvard leadership? The answer in each case is clear. I ask you to step up and do what is right!
Edwin Clarke ’68
Ann Arbor, Mich.
Because my parents were factory workers, and could never afford to pay tuition, room and board, books, etc., I did not want to apply. Thankfully, my guidance counselor convinced me to do it.
I majored in government, had Doris Kearns Goodwin as a teaching instructor, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences nominated me for both the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships. I was an honors student in the Class of 1970. The bottom line is this: I saw NO antisemitic bias at Harvard. It was a great place to go to college, and I am proud to have attended “poor man’s Harvard!”
Mitch Pezdek, C ’70
Salisbury, N.C.
Right now, Harvard looks like it is run by a bunch of lost and misguided souls eager to send the world in the wrong direction. If Harvard continues its tolerance of antisemitism, it should not receive federal funds. If Harvard continues to be dominated by the far left, it will suffer the same fate as the rudderless Democratic party. Massive change is needed.
Good luck!
Rick Lynch, M.B.A. ’77
Shrewsbury, Mass.
What’s the definition of elite? I was accepted into the MBA program as a single mother of two young teenagers with no money and no undergraduate degree. After graduation, I had a wonderful career and raised happy and productive children. As a woman in finance, however, I encountered obstacles, which make me empathetic with those who are members of marginalized groups. I will be forever grateful to Harvard for standing up!
Judy Stickler, M.B.A. ’79
Sarasota, Fla.
Intergenerational Disagreement in the Age of Social Media
I appreciated the conciliatory efforts of Serena Jampel in “Agree to Disagree” (page 14). But there is more to this difficult story than matters of rhetoric and politesse. The Trump administration has just allocated $93 million to Jewish groups in an effort to combat antisemitism, which has been defined by some as protesting the American taxpayer-financed deaths of Palestinians in Gaza. The baby boomers’ mainstream narrative is bolstered by the political and financial power structures to which they cling. But it may be slowly decomposing in the face of the younger generation’s embrace of less fettered social media reporting. Perhaps it’s time to recognize that this moment of intergenerational transition will not be stopped nor even soothed by more mannered conversations.
Constance B. Hilliard ’71, Ph.D. ’77
Hickory Creek, Tex.
Missing Vita
I noticed that there was no Vita section in the July-August issue of Harvard Magazine. I am writing to request that it return. I find learning about the contributions of past Harvard members is quite illuminating and is the first section I turn to when a new issue arrives.
Grant Donnelly, D.B.A.’18
Columbus, Ohio
Praise for an Editor
I will miss knowing John S. Rosenberg is at your helm very much. He is a gentleman and a scholar.
SaraKay Smullens (wife of Stan Smullens ’57)
Kudos to John Rosenberg for his masterful handling of Harvard Magazine for three decades!
Susan Seymour, Ph.D. ’71
Claremont, Calif.
The College Pump
In the May-June issue, Primus links two women (“The College Pump,” page 56) with a tenuous connection: editor Katharine White and physician Alice Hamilton, subject of that issue’s Vita. Primus found that a sister of White had profiled Hamilton in a 1927 book, Fire Under the Andes. As Schlesinger Library’s curator of manuscripts from 1972 to 1999, I never knew either woman, but I admired Hamilton, Harvard’s first female professor, via her papers. The Vita suggests that she didn’t “take the required restrictions [no faculty club or football tickets, etc.] personally.” I suspect she found them silly. Harvard hired her because she was the foremost expert on industrial poisons and other hazards. It provided a way to extend her research and reform efforts while training younger colleagues; that’s what mattered.
Eva S. Moseley, M.A. ’55
Cambridge, Mass.
Renaming Winthrop House
Jencks and Riesman’s noted book, The Academic Revolution (1968), was the first to report that the faculty had taken leadership at American universities. Harvard’s acquiescence to bandwagon movements by faculty and students is now used to justify devastating attacks by the Trump administration. The proposed Winthrop House renaming is another manifestation that reminds me of the San Francisco City Council’s initial vote to change the names of 44 schools, including those [named after] Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
Slavery was imposed on the colonies by the British government. If names of owners should be discredited regardless of historical context, then we ought to rename Washington, D.C. If President Eliot were in charge, I suggest he might recognize research on slave history with appropriate brass plaques with balanced historical information on the namesakes of all Houses.
Frank T. Manheim ’52
Kansas City, Mo.
The International Nature of Science Research
Across multiple conversations with alumni, friends, and neighbors, it’s clear that most people don’t understand how universities serve government. Research grants to faculty are not entitlements. Such grants are what the U.S. government wants smart people to do to advance national security and prosperity. And they do this work at a fraction of the cost the government would incur if it had to undertake creating the laboratories and searching all over the world for experts to work on its priorities.
International students are part of an ecosystem that makes this possible because fewer Americans opt to seek degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Total foreign student enrollment today is 6 percent nationwide, compared to 25 and 30 percent in other English-speaking countries. Yet, more than half of all degrees in science and engineering are earned by international students.
So, the next time you read a news story about a U.S. advance in medicine, science, or technology, note the surnames of the team members responsible. And do, indeed, ask not what our country is doing for them but what international students are doing for us.
Allan E. Goodman, M.P.A. ’68, Ph.D. ’71
President Emeritus, Institute of International Education
Washington, D.C.
Veritas and Unitatis
In the latest issue of Harvard Magazine, Catherine Snow, a professor at the Graduate School of Education, is quoted as saying, “I’ve come to realize now how naive we’ve been to assume that the values Harvard stands for are widely shared.” And she’s absolutely right.
Any number of recent media pieces on Harvard portray an unflattering image of a seemingly arrogant, elitist institution. I did my graduate work at the Kennedy School and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. I also served as the founding director of the Kennedy School’s executive education program in national security. My impression of the University and its values is captured well in the following excerpt from President Larry Bacow’s remarks to the graduating class of 2022:
“Today I want to challenge you…to ensure that the opportunities afforded by your education do not enrich your life alone…Please be known at least as much for your humility, kindness, and concern for others as for your professional accomplishments. Recognize the role that good fortune and circumstances have played in your life, and please work to extend opportunity to others just as it has been extended to you. That is how you will sustain the pride and joy you feel today. And that’s the truth.”
Douglas Johnston, M.P.A. ’67, Ph.D. ’82
Alexandria, Va.
I enjoyed your excellent coverage of the 374th Commencement, which in the table of contents was summarized as “A University united.” As an Extension School graduate present that day, I can attest to that feeling of unity. In reflecting on the day, I wonder whether Harvard might benefit from more actively sharing the mission and impact of the Extension School with policymakers and the wider public. My fellow graduates balanced studies with significant work and family commitments, and on Commencement Day I learned that nearly 10 percent of this year’s 1,300 Extension School graduates are active-duty or veteran service members, and that we come from all 50 states.
We live in a time when the public’s understanding of Harvard’s mission, makeup, and impact is being tested. Alongside all the important research and scholarship undertaken within the University, the Extension School stands as an important further example of the contribution Harvard makes to our fellow citizens. Perhaps sharing this lesser-known aspect of our University may help Harvard prevail and flourish.
Victor P. Seidel, A.L.M. ’25
Needham, Mass.
Honorand Citation Eloquence
Whoever wrote the citation for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar should also receive an honorary degree. “[T]he arc of his sky hook is long, but it bends toward justice”? Just brilliant.
Jenna McNeil ’95
Philadelphia, Penn.
Democracy and Authoritarianism
I was both fascinated and uplifted by Lydialyle Gibson’s article on Erica Chenoweth (page 32). I had vaguely heard of something called the “3.5 percent rule” but had little idea of the context or who came up with it. To me, the recent mass demonstrations against Trump and other autocrats are an encouraging sign. People exhausted from opposing just the first five months of “Trump administration redux” should not give up or give in to complete despair. Yes, Trump and his cronies will likely commit further damage (or certainly try) to the U.S. democratic institutions and traditions, but we can almost see the end of that tunnel now. Reading about Professor Chenoweth and their work was truly a halogen-bright spot in what has been a bleak year.
Curtis Krechevsky, J.D. ’82
Westborough, Mass.
The article on Professor Erica Chenoweth’s work documenting whether violence or nonviolence has been more successful in overthrowing “oppressive regimes” was fascinating. But I was surprised that the author stressed that this analysis can be useful for those opposing democratically elected governments. It would appear that Chenoweth’s research can be used to make democratic elections worthless, since if the losers claim the winner is “oppressive,” they can cancel the election by mobbing streets and highways, engaging in boycotts, etc., and overturn this “oppressive” regime. The favorable presentation of this hijacking of Chenoweth’s research is so obvious, one must assume the article’s author seems quite pleased with its anti-democratic utility. I hope Professor Chenoweth is not so pleased.
Paul M. Meo ’61
Lottsburg, Va.
My stomach turned when I read the gratuitous and sexist physical description of Professor Chenoweth. Their hairstyle and clothing choices are not relevant to the content of the article. I am livid on their behalf and appalled at the sloppy journalism of Harvard Magazine.
Renee Kaufman, M.L.A. ’05
San Francisco
I was surprised that the article about Erica Chenoweth, “The Professor Who Quantified Democracy” (July-August, page 32), never mentioned Gene Sharp’s foundational work on the topic of nonviolent civil resistance. This was odd in view of Sharp’s strong links to Harvard during most of his career. It’s true that Chenoweth’s (and Stephan’s) work represents an advance on Sharp’s work in some ways, but Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973), and in particular the second volume, “The Methods of Nonviolent Action,” is still quite relevant. If memory serves, members of the Serbian group Otpor, mentioned on page 53, played a central role in training Egyptian activists in Cairo during the Arab Spring uprising there, using Gene Sharp’s work as their guide.
Patrick Diehl ’67
Tucson, Ariz.
Care Gaps and Disabilities
I read with interest the article “Quality of Care” (May-June, page 32) and I commend the attention to this critical issue. However, I was disheartened by the continued omission of people who are hard of hearing—a community that is repeatedly left out of the disability conversation despite clear and ongoing barriers to healthcare access.
This is especially troubling in light of the article’s quote from advocate Colin Killick, whose bill in the Massachusetts State House sought to prevent healthcare discrimination and affirm that the lives of people with disabilities are “as valuable and as worth living as anybody else’s.” But who decides which disabilities are “serious” enough to count?
When people who are hard of hearing lack access to compatible assistive technologies in medical settings, such as induction loops, they are effectively left unaided. The impact is profound. If you cannot hear your doctor, how can you give informed consent? This is a basic legal principle in medical malpractice—and yet, it is not treated as serious enough for inclusion.
It is time for Harvard and the broader medical and policy communities to recognize that hearing loss exists on a spectrum, that it is a serious disability—and that excluding people who are hard of hearing from research, teaching, and policy has real and damaging consequences. The omission is not just academic oversight—it is a barrier to equal care and federal legislation.
Janice S. Lintz, M.P.A. ’23
Washington, D.C.
As an alumna of Harvard Law School living with Type 1 bipolar disorder, I read your recent article, “Quality of Care” (May-June, page 32), with both deep appreciation and deep concern.
The piece rightly explores systemic gaps in our healthcare system, but I feel compelled to add the perspective of someone whose disability is often invisible, misunderstood, or dismissed entirely—even by the professionals charged with our care. For those of us living with severe mood disorders, the quality of care is not merely a question of access or cost. It’s a matter of survival.
For years, I sought answers to symptoms no doctor connected to a mood disorder. I was misdiagnosed, under-treated, and frequently gaslit—brushed off as too articulate to be ill, too high-functioning to warrant concern. Even after my eventual diagnosis, I’ve faced endless battles: providers ignoring psychiatric history, hospitals refusing to honor psychiatric service dogs, and insurance companies denying coverage for the care I need to remain stable and independent. The stigma surrounding mental illness is alive and well, even in the very institutions meant to serve and protect us.
Michiko Lisa Lindsey, J.D. ’99
San Diego, Cali.
The silence surrounding disability issues, the dehumanization of persons who identify as disabled, and the continued need for equitable healthcare, despite the existence of studies that led up to current findings, resonate deeply with my experience as an individual and a patient. The experience of seeing this article in print was in and of itself liberating, empowering. As is often the case, others speak to the contours of our lives—I relate this as a person who identifies as disabled—thinking in paternalistic ways that they might speak “for us.” My response, then, begins with gratitude in the form of the disability motto, “Nothing about us without us.”
One of the paradoxes that emerged in my reading of Dr. Iezzoni’s research was this: On the one hand, physicians erroneously believe that the quality of life for dis/abled persons is worse than for those without. On the other hand, there appears to be societal resistance to narratives of people who identify as dis/abled. As long as that paradox holds, we cannot win. This courageous former medical student defying her mentors’ expectations opens up so much. How much richer, more accurate, research could become if everyone’s perspectives were included.
I often dream of an international site that would create a space for stories of discrimination, voiced by the people against whom it was leveled. (Once, I envisioned poems projected onto a spiral). I also dream, in my free time, of a site onto which people might project their visions as to what universal design might look like in smart classrooms, on campuses, and beyond. I consider the possibility of mobile smart studios, with digital information about practicing artists…galleries in the area. With digital commands for adjustable easels, programs for the creation of digital art, and protection of copyright. I envision collaborative studios for visual artists, musicians, and writers, who could work together for genre-bending results.
Christina L. Turczyn, Ph.D.
Franklin Stove R&D
Regarding Joyce Chaplin’s article, “Ben Franklin’s Project,” in the May-June issue (page 37), the author missed the opportunity to expound on Franklin’s ingenious application of the scientific method—starting with a hypothesis—and research and development, by testing models in his own home. In this way, he advanced each stove’s design toward the most efficient outcome. Franklin sought to create an efficient heating solution during a time of decreasing natural resources.
Sheryl Manganaro, A.L.B. ’07, A.L.M ’15
Newton Center, Mass.
An Orange a Day
An interesting article about citrus, the microbiome, and depression (“Can an Orange a Day Stave Off Depression?”, page 9). Here’s my concern: I think the average daily serving of oranges during the time frame in question was a glass of orange juice at breakfast. As I recall, a smallish glass of orange juice is the result of squeezing three or more oranges. If my recollection is correct, then one orange a day will not equal the amounts that were probably actually consumed by the study subjects. On the other hand, if we consume an orange “pulp and all” instead of squeezing three, we will derive certain other benefits. Happy breakfasting! (Maybe eating breakfast reduces depression.)
Anne Vohl, J.D. ’71
Reno, Nev.
Pony Plunges
Regarding the article “Pony Plunges” (page 64), I recommend that your readers view The Cowboy and the Queen (2023), a documentary available on Amazon Prime. The program features the equestrian rider and trainer Monty Roberts and the “nonviolent,” clearly effective horse training methods he has employed and promoted over the course of several decades in both the United States and abroad. This brief segment and other material chronicling man’s historically inhumane treatment of horses begs the question of how the horses in the Atlantic City diving horses act fared, a subject that wasn’t addressed in the article.
Howard Chatterton ’69
Bruce, Wis.
What a bizarre thing to celebrate (“Treasure,” July-August 2025, page 64): the cruelty of driving a horse off a high platform into the water. Especially so because the article notes the broken noses and blindness that inevitably accompanied such a fall into water. Such an act is fearless for whom? I doubt the horses. Would Harvard really commemorate photographic ‘treasures’ of a vintage dog fight, or maybe bear baiting? Surely Harvard has some photographic treasures that don’t celebrate acts of wanton animal abuse disguised as entertainment.
Heather J. Lynch, Ph.D. ’06
Port Jefferson, N.Y.
Meeting Tom Lehrer
If you were a nerd growing up in the ’60s and ’70s, you lived in worship of Tom Lehrer, the Harvard mathematician and economist who captured the zeitgeist of the times with boisterous, edgy musical numbers. His songs were some of the most clever and timeless musical satire ever produced. Think Weird Al meets Stephen Colbert. Long before YouTube, we would huddle around a turntable and replay track after track, trying to internalize tricky lyrics until they would roll trippingly from our own tongues.
As a Harvard freshman, I found I was not alone in revering Lehrer. One day, a bunch of us were sitting around listening to his records when I suggested we call him up and ask him to lunch. I opened the phone book and there he was. One proper Southern gentleman in our circle of friends thought it “unseemly” that a young lady would call and ask a man to lunch. But in the absence of any male takers, I boldly dialed the phone. The voice that answered was clearly Lehrer himself. After catching my breath, I explained that we were a bunch of freshmen who admired him and wondered if he would allow us to take him to lunch. His response: “Would Friday at 1 work for you?”
It was a lovely lunch consisting mainly of small talk. He revealed no answers to the secrets that have fueled urban legends, such as why he stopped performing so abruptly. He talked about the unequaled beauty of autumn in New England. He asked about the current faculty in the Harvard music department. He shared that one of his best friends asked him to perform for his 50th birthday party. His response was, “I’ll do it for $50,000, which is my way of saying I don’t want to do it.”
He created a body of work that endures, if not in its political relevance today, at least as a first-person account of an important moment in American history.
Ellen Weiss Dodson ’80, S.M. ’83
Seattle
Next to Leonard Bernstein, the most valuable and educational contact I made as an undergrad at Harvard was Tom Lehrer. On a spring afternoon in April 1969, I looked up Lehrer in the Cambridge phone book and found him listed just above me. I called and asked if I could meet him, and he said, “Come on over.” I bicycled from Dunster House to Sparks Street at about 7 p.m. and didn’t get back until 3 a.m. One of the first things I said to him in person was: “I know almost all your songs by heart.” His response: “Your friends must hate you…”
In those hours I spent with him, I learned more about songwriting, and the background of his work, than in any other session before or since. On a subsequent visit, Norman Siegel ’72 came with me, and we transcribed some of Lehrer’s manuscripts, particularly the song “Clementine,” which has never been published. In 1985, performing for a mostly Jewish audience in Berlin, I decided to create a new verse: “A Clementine Kaddish.” Lehrer had no objection, and I registered it with ASCAP [American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers].
Other original creations inspired by him have transpired over the years. His parody of “Major-General’s Song” from Pirates of Penzance [by Arthur Sullivan] set the periodic table in rhyme, but only up to element 102. My third verse, with slight musical truncation, brings it up to element 120. “Lighten Up, Ludmila” is based on a lyric a friend remembers him writing on a napkin. And in “A Little Harvard Hate Fugue,” for my 50th Harvard Reunion, I set his well-known syllogism to music: “I know there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!”
Leonard J. Lehrman ’71
Errata
In “The Professor Who Quantified Democracy” (page 32), the Serbian group mentioned in the last paragraph is “Otpor,” not “Optor.” The article about “International Students” (page 30) includes a pie chart that incorrectly shows that 37 percent of the students at the T. H. Chan School of Public Health are international. The accompanying text gives the correct percentage: 42. And in “Harvard Cambridge Scholars” (page 42), Van Tran ’25 of Kirkland House is incorrectly identified as Van C. Tran. There should be no middle initial. We regret the errors.
