In the past month, Harvard President Claudine Gay has released two statements in regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first expressed her hope that Harvard would “modulate rather than amplify the deep-seated divisions and animosities” with regard to the conflict, but received backlash—from faculty, students, donors, alumni, and the general public—for not specifically condemning Hamas nor distancing the university from student groups who blamed Israel for the unfolding violence. On October 10, Gay released a second statement, which responded to the backlash by directly “condemn[ing] the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas,” and further emphasizing that “while our students have the right to speak for themselves, no student group — not even 30 student groups — speaks for Harvard University or its leadership.”
Gay’s second statement begs the question: if Harvard’s students do not speak for Harvard University, who does? Though their presence might not actively or regularly impact Harvard students and community, the Israel-Palestine conflict has exposed donors’ ever-present role in shaping campus rhetoric.
This past month has proven that Harvard benefactors believe that their voice in public issues should match the size of their checkbook. At universities across the nation, including Harvard, outsized donors have been using their platform and their money to sway the stances of universities. Kenneth Griffin, who has donated a total of $1 billion to Harvard University and had the Harvard University Graduate School renamed in his honor in 2023, pushed Harvard to condemn the students who blamed Israel for the Hamas attack.
Similarly, the Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and his wife Batia resigned from the executive board of the Harvard Kennedy School in protest for what they felt was a lukewarm and late condemnation of Hamas and the Pro-Palestine student groups. Victoria’s Secret founder Les Wexner likewise has chosen to end his financial relationship with Harvard, citing “the absence of a clear moral standard” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—namely, Harvard’s choice to not publicly align themselves with Israel. At the Harvard Business School, a number of illustrious alumni, including Senator Mitt Romney and billionaire investor Seth Klarman, signed an open letter demanding that the university regulate pro-Palestinian protests on campus for the protection of Jewish students.
Universities are unique and key sanctuaries of academic freedom and truth, and public trust in these institutions relies on the assumption that these universities operate independently of political agendas. Universities such as Harvard can be a space for the diversity of opinions and thought—a refuge that becomes vital in politically tense and divisive times. On such sensitive issues as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is vital that the voices of donors do not drown out those of Harvard’s leadership and faculty. Universities cannot simply become a reflection of the platform of their major donors—especially on this issue—because of its moral dimension.
Similar attempts from donors to use funds to manipulate campus policy have appeared at other institutions across the country. At the University of Pennsylvania, a group of donors, led by Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity investor, have harshly criticized the university for not unequivocally supporting Israel and have pushed for other donors to halt contributions to $1 a year until the university alters its public stance. Tensions at UPenn have been mounting for months, as the Palestine Writes Literary Festival drew ire from donors, who felt the event was anti-Semitic and had no place on campus.
Likewise, Stanford has received an open letter signed by many major donors, criticizing Stanford’s “moral resolve.” Columbia has postponed their annual fund-raising drive, as waves of criticism regarding Palestinian support from students and tenured professors suffuse the campus. NYU and Cornell face increasing scrutiny for not decisively supporting Israel. This widespread use of donations to coerce universities into changing their policies reveals that academic freedom is in danger nationwide. By changing college policy to appease donors, Harvard would not only be compromising its own dedication to diversity of perspectives, but announcing to other universities that this is the acceptable dynamic between colleges and their benefactors.
Many of these donors are moved by their moral and religious beliefs in their staunch support of Israel, and, as a result, feel an obligation to use their influence to defend this cause. They are entitled to their views and to use their platforms as they see fit. However, the demands of many donors (such as those from Griffenn, Wexner, and Klarman) that the University quell pro-Palestine protests and discussion is an unwarranted infringement on academic freedom.
On the other hand, concerns about Jewish student’s safety on campus have driven much of this donor criticism—an issue that should be of paramount importance to universities. Yet, students involved in or related to the joint statement released by the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) and the Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine have also received direct threats to their well-being in the past few weeks. Prioritizing only select students’ well-being based on donor pressure will continue to create a hostile and unequal campus environment.
Giving donors the power to direct discourse on campuses allows universities to mirror a political system sharing many of the same problems. Donors would be able to “lobby” universities into shifting their mission and values. Rather than reflect the reasoning, work, and research of academics and scholars, universities would only amplify the views of a select number of ultra-wealthy alumni and donors. Though the irony is evident in distinguishing Harvard from a select number of wealthy elite, there is a difference between expressing the views of a collective body of academics and scholars, who, as Gay stated, pursue “truth in all its complexity,” and espousing the beliefs of those with the deepest pockets. If Harvard does the latter, its accreditation will be marred, as its mission shifts from “truth” to the views and agendas of private individuals.
Though Harvard relies on donors to fund yearly operational costs, it has a $51 billion endowment that should grant it the flexibility to distance itself from politically charged donors. Harvard’s financial insulation hopefully gives it the stability to resist the buffers and pressures of exogenous perspectives and motives. So far, Harvard seems to have done so by not altering its public stance nor regulating expression according to the wishes of donors. Though Harvard has been criticized in recent weeks for not better supporting both Jewish and Palestinian students, the University’s tendency towards silence on this issue is perhaps the lesser of two evils. Instead of imposing a stance on its faculty and students, a diversity of conflicting opinions on this complex issue can coexist on campus.
The entirety of the Harvard community cannot be expected to reach a consensus on the correct moral position to take on the Israeli-Hamas war. The great number of civilian casualties and devastating losses on both sides prove that such a clear-cut moral position may not exist. However, universities such as Harvard are unique in that they contain a diversity of brilliant minds who consider these issues independently of a University-wide agenda. To allow donors to direct Harvard’s moral values and public statements would undermine the mission and legitimacy of the College, one of few institutions able to offer intellectual and moral perspectives untainted by private motives.
Kate Kadyan ’26 (katekadyan@college.harvard.edu) writes Forum for the Independent.