A few weeks after presiding over his fifth Harvard Commencement, Neil L.
Rudenstine made time to discuss with Harvard Magazine his goals upon
becoming president in 1991, the current state of the University and higher
education, and his priorities for the next several years. Highlights of
the conversation follow.
What were your major priorities when you came to Cambridge in 1991?
Well, the first goal of any president of Harvard is clear: to sustain the
highest possible quality in the University's educational and research programs-in
short, to advance Harvard's central commitment to academic excellence.
President Bok-and President Pusey before him-ensured that Harvard remained
exceptionally strong. Anyone who came after them was bound to be fortunate.
Still, every era has its problems, and the recession of the late 1980s and
early 1990s, along with other factors, had placed higher education in a
difficult position. For example, because of economic pressures, Harvard
had an operating deficit of about $42 million in 1991. That alone called
for an immediate, serious planning effort in order to identify ways to control
costs, make sensible economies, and achieve financial balance.
In addition, Harvard had already announced that it intended to launch a
major fundraising campaign. That meant moving forward to create a University-wide
fundraising organization-something Harvard had never done before. It also
meant raising $650 million within 36 months to create a reasonable nucleus
for the campaign.
Most important, we had to begin a comprehensive analysis of the academic
needs and priorities of the entire University. Given the time such an analysis
would take, we decided to postpone the campaign launch by a full year, to
the spring of 1994. Only then-with a serious, well-tested plan in hand-could
we confidently go to our alumni and friends, and ask for their help in meeting
a fundraising goal that eventually reached $2.1 billion.
What was involved in implementing that agenda?
Quite a few appointments, to begin with. When President Bok announced his
decision to leave after 20 years, several deans and other senior officers
also decided it was a natural time for them to move on. The deans of four
faculties, two vice presidents, a Corporation member, the secretary to the
Governing Boards, and several other major administrative posts were either
open-or were about to become open-in my first year.
Given Harvard's decentralized structure, the University depends to an unusual
extent on its deans-so a great deal of time and effort goes into every search.
Making that many appointments gave me the opportunity to forge strong working
relationships with the people being appointed, and to build a team of individuals
committed to working together.
It was also, for me, an exceptional educational opportunity. I had the chance
for in-depth contact with people and programs all across the University-visiting
different departments and schools, sitting in on classes, talking with faculty
members about their teaching and research, meeting students and staff, and
getting to know Harvard all over again, in a way completely different from
how I knew it as a young graduate student and faculty member in the 1960s.
It was also important to reach out to alumni and friends of the University,
across the country and abroad. So I began a kind of odyssey which continues
to this day: I'm still discovering new parts of the Harvard community.
Finally, throughout my discussions with the presidential search committee,
one theme kept recurring: were there ways to bring the parts of Harvard
closer together, to enhance both academic programs and administrative systems?
It was clear that the fundamental economic structure of the University,
with each faculty or other unit responsible for its own basic finances,
shouldn't be undermined. Endowments had been restricted to specific units
over decades and even centuries, and each unit's physical plant and programs
required a continued flow of predictable resources from its traditional
revenue streams. The challenge, therefore, was to introduce more collaboration
and more flexible funds within this structure, so that we could help underendowed
units while also supporting important new initiatives that cross the disciplines
or faculties.
The aim of bringing the University community closer together sounds like
the hardest part of the agenda. How have you proceeded?
All of us recognized that this would be a long-term project and a challenging
one, given Harvard's decentralized culture. But it seemed to me, and to
many others, that the way to begin moving ahead was to use the academic
planning process-and the vehicle of a university-wide fundraising campaign-to
create the kind of cooperation and joint action that could make a significant
difference in the way decisions are made and the University is administered.
Creating the new position of provost was an essential part of this effort,
because the need for greater coordination and oversight of various activities
was central to everything that we planned.
From the beginning, the deans have been crucial in making the process work.
Each of our nine faculties meets as a separate body, and each has its own
mission. So we began the University-wide planning process by having each
dean work within his faculty to develop an academic plan. Then each plan
was presented to a group that included myself and the provost, two or three
deans from other schools, some faculty members, financial officers, and,
eventually, development officers. In this way, every unit's plan was considered
in a broad institutional context. Quite apart from the constructive criticism-and
occasional fireworks-that all of this produced, the process created a sense
of partnership among the deans and many other individuals-as well as a sense
of shared goals and responsibilities concerning Harvard's future.
What about the formal interfaculty initiatives that came out of the planning
process?
No one began the process saying, "What we really need are some interfaculty
initiatives." Instead, commonalities began to emerge as the plans were
presented. For example, nearly every faculty had environmental studies toward
the top of its academic priorities, so it seemed clear that a University-wide
environmental program would attract strong support and excellent people.
The idea for the "Mind, Brain, and Behavior" program originated
with the Medical School and Dean Tosteson-but other deans and faculty members
soon agreed that it had significant implications not just for medicine,
but also for experimental psychology, philosophy of mind, anthropology,
organizational behavior, and other fields as well.
In short, the interfaculty initiatives weren't a set of a priori ideas.
They grew organically out of our discussions, as people discovered common
interests that seemed to invite important forms of collaboration.
Our discussions also led us to consider ways of cooperating in international
studies, which is of growing importance in every school. "International
studies" includes so many subjects and disciplines that trying to create
a single interfaculty initiative didn't seem right. Instead, we focused
on strengthening a number of specific areas, while also seeking to reinforce
the links among different programs and units. For instance, the need to
build strength in Latin American studies led to the creation of the David
Rockefeller Center. Islamic studies also needed more attention, and that
soon led to-among other things-a center for Islamic legal studies based
at the Law School. The Russian Research Center recently received a great
boost, thanks to a $10 million endowment gift from Kathryn Davis. And we
have just begun serious fundraising in the Far East, to support a center
that will help coordinate and expand our Asia-related research and education.
Beyond particular programs, the overarching goal is to create a major new
complex where many of the international and area studies centers, along
with the government department, can be brought together in a quadrangle.
The physical design will give direct expression to the academic vision:
bringing together programs focused on different parts of the world, so they
can shed light not only on individual societies or regions, but also on
transregional and global problems. An integrated design of this kind is
especially important in a world where so many important issues cut across
geographic boundaries-and it can make an especially powerful contribution
in a University where we're fortunate to have such strong national and regional
centers.
Beyond building bridges among the disciplines, what are some of Harvard's
other academic priorities?
The plans for the College-developed under Dean Jeremy Knowles's leadership-show
another way we have tried both to reinforce traditional strengths and to
build an even broader sense of community. We began by renovating all the
dormitories in the Yard, and then renovating Memorial Hall-including a new
dining room for first-year students [Annenberg Hall] and a new common space
for students to study, socialize, or simply have a snack [Loker Commons].
The idea was to make a very tangible improvement in the quality of life
for undergraduates, especially first-year students-and the results so far
have been very encouraging.
Meanwhile, Dean Knowles began a process to review all the undergraduate
fields of concentration, and now the Core Curriculum, to strengthen our
academic programs. And, as you know, one of the main goals of the Campaign
is to endow 40 new faculty positions in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences-one
of the most significant investments in undergraduate education under way
anywhere in the nation. It will materially improve the faculty-student ratio,
and therefore the academic experience of all students in the College.
Our planning process also reinforced our total commitment to need-blind
admissions and need-based financial aid for undergraduates. Our financial-aid
program is critical to our ability to attract the most talented, diverse,
and promising students to Harvard, regardless of their financial circumstances.
So the Campaign includes an unusually large goal for student aid, both for
undergraduates and for graduate students.
In several recent talks, you have spoken about the importance of new
information technologies to higher education [see "Learning
on Line" from our July-August issue]. How will these technologies
affect Harvard?
Many people remember the rhetoric that accompanied the introduction of television-and
before that, radio-in terms of their potential to have a profound effect
on higher education-a potential that was never realized.
The new technologies represent something very different-much deeper and
more powerful. They are inherently interactive. They are also highly "literate"-working
with them demands a sophisticated and intensive use of language. They place
the students in the role of active learners who have to frame the right
questions, pursue answers down all sorts of different pathways, and then
refine their thinking as they move ahead. And they also dovetail in other
important ways with some of the most effective traditional methods of teaching
and learning. We need to recognize that we're on the brink of a profound
change in how information and knowledge are generated, communicated, and
transformed into increased understanding. Harvard needs to be at the forefront
in adapting the technology wisely and imaginatively to significant educational
uses.
What does that imply for putting new technology to work here?
Since 1992, we've invested tens of millions of dollars in creating basic
networks-and in new electronic materials for teaching. We'll be investing
at least another $100 million over the next five years in both academic
and administrative advanced technology. Clearly, we're still in the early
stages of a long process.
One of the first products of our academic planning sessions was a decision
in 1992 to create an electronic catalog for all of the holdings of Harvard's
92 libraries, so that essential information on our 12 million or so volumes
could be instantaneously available on-line. It was an expensive undertaking-on
the order of $20 million-but an absolutely essential foundation for further
progress.
We have made excellent headway on connecting student dormitories, faculty
offices, and staff to an integrated, high-speed data network that will soon
span the whole University. We've also moved forward with a major technology-based
initiative known as "Project ADAPT," which will help us modernize
and integrate our administrative systems, and make them more cost-effective.
Perhaps most important, the academic deans have spent the greatest share
of our meetings during the last year discussing ways that we can continue
to expand the uses of information technology in teaching and learning. We
have visited different Harvard schools to see what they are actually doing
in information technology, and what they plan to do. This is accelerating
the transfer of ideas from one school to another-and it's helping us formulate
a more comprehensive plan for the future.
For instance, some of the schools have begun to develop sophisticated multimedia
instructional "cases" that are available on-line. They include
not only traditional text, but video, audio, spreadsheets, links to other
databases, and other layers of materials that can help to make complex situations
come to life much more vividly than traditional text-based cases. It's a
good example of what I mentioned before: how the new technologies can enhance
teaching and learning by building on effective methods that already exist,
rather than displacing them.
What other educational challenges do you see emerging in the near future?
It's hard to mention them all in the context of just one discussion. We
have a major set of objectives in the applied sciences, and in the biological
and biomedical sciences. We'll also be moving forward with the new Barker
Center for the Humanities-another example of reconfiguring physical space
to connect and enhance academic programs.
Another large area involves the transformation taking place across professional
education-a direct result of fundamental changes in the professions themselves.
Whether we consider medicine and health care, or public school education,
or the process of government, or business or law or other fields, it's clear
that the very nature of many professional pursuits is changing, and so the
way we think about educating future leaders in the professions must also
change.
Of course, certain core disciplines and methods will remain firmly in place.
Doctors still need to know basic sciences, which are themselves changing
rapidly. Lawyers still need to learn contracts and torts. But we are in
a period of intensive, accelerated change, and we need to educate our students
to prepare them for the continuous evolution of knowledge.
For instance, as the health-care system changes, and as hospital stays become
shorter, the way we educate advanced medical students in clinical settings
must clearly change. Doing the usual "hospital rounds" will rarely
be enough to give a student a proper clinical education, because most patients
are literally here today and gone tomorrow. There simply isn't the chance
for students to observe and follow hospital cases in the way that was once
possible. So medical education will have to become more "ambulatory,"
and that will require new approaches.
Obviously no single educational model will fit professions that range from
architecture to the ministry to public health. But there are common themes.
The international dimension has to be taken more seriously into account
in virtually every profession. The emphasis on executive education and lifelong
learning will grow, given the pace of discovery and change in so many fields-and
given that it's no longer possible for an individual to master even the
fundamentals of a profession during a few years at a university.
In addition, virtually every profession has come to depend heavily on insights
and forms of analysis drawn from other disciplines. Whether we're trying
to understand the problems of public schooling, or the environment, or inner
cities, we find ourselves soon at a loss-unless we can call upon the capabilities
of economists, policy analysts, people who understand the sociology of diverse
societies and their institutions, and so forth. That's another reason for
increasing academic collaboration across the University.
Are any additional Harvard-wide academic initiatives in the offing?
There's another area we have been discussing. It's clear that recent scholarship
has made important contributions to our basic understanding of the changing
roles of women and men in society, and the ways that gender influences how
individuals relate to one another and how institutions function. Serious
study and research in this area can help us understand the past more fully,
and shape the future more intelligently.
I think Harvard is now in a very good position to build on recent progress.
Steady work by the deans and faculties has significantly increased the number
of tenured women faculty members across the University-from about 70 in
1990, to more than 120 in 1995. Many of the new appointments represent important
breakthroughs in our professional schools. As a result, we are now in a
far better position to think more concretely about collaborative teaching
and research about issues relating to the roles of women in society. I hope-and
expect-that we will continue to press forward in quite tangible ways during
the coming year.
What are the significant issues in Harvard's external environment?
In the last year or two, the Washington agenda has obviously become much
more intense, given the federal budget situation. Thanks to the efforts
of many individuals in Congress and the executive branch, funding for most
basic sciences has received very solid support. Nevertheless, given the
prospect of cuts in discretionary spending over the next several years,
we still have a long way to go in making the case for research support and
for important student aid programs.
The developments surrounding diversity and student admissions, both in the
courts and in state legislatures, have also become a major concern. Here,
my own views could not be more clear. [see "The
Uses of Diversity" ] We need to sustain our commitment to the educational
benefits of a diverse student body-and to the education of future leaders
who must be able to work effectively in our diverse democratic society.
This includes, specifically, students from different ethnic or racial groups.
I do not believe that our universities and our nation wish to return to
the kind of situation that existed before the 1960s and 1970s. But to avoid
that, we must sustain our longstanding, fundamental commitment to diversity.
Given the uncertainties in the external environment, does Harvard have
the resources to sustain its academic ambitions over the next several years?
During the last five years, the $42 million deficit has been virtually eliminated:
we were only about $3 million shy of balance last year, with an annual operating
budget of nearly $1.5 billion. In addition, the endowment has been superbly
managed. Particularly in the past few years, it has done exceptionally well
in comparison to other large, diversified funds that are designed to weather
different financial markets.
Meanwhile, the University Campaign remains slightly ahead of schedule. We've
succeeded in attracting many major gifts-thanks to the leadership of Corporation
member and campaign co-chair Bob Stone and others, as well as to the generosity
of many, many people. The success so far is testimony to the extraordinary
commitment of tens of thousands of people to Harvard, and to the ideal of
excellence that Harvard represents.
Given the challenges involved in raising new funds, the uncertainties with
research funding, and the constant effort to control our costs, we might
well be tempted simply to try to hold the course for some period of time.
But we cannot do that. It's our basic purpose-and our obligation-to try
to understand nature and human nature in all their complexity. That isn't
a static process.
The rate of change today is so swift, the issues and problems confronting
the world are so complicated and formidable, and the opportunities that
we have to address some of those problems are so great, that if we did anything
less than move energetically ahead-if we set out simply to balance our budget,
and keep our heads down-we would be be failing ourselves, our students,
and everything this University stands for.
That's part of the excitement-getting out there, meeting the challenges,
educating people for their future, making the most important contribution
to society that we can. Just as we must effectively control expenses, we
also have to keep investing. We have to be ambitious in the right way, as
Harvard has been throughout its history. We have to keep looking forward.
Otherwise the future will simply pass us by.
