The Complexities In The Resignation Of Harvard President Claudine Gay

Across social media, I witnessed shock, sadness, anger, and frustration by many in higher education and beyond over the Tuesday resignation of Claudine Gay. African American colleagues especially felt gutted by the news of Harvard University’s first Black president stepping down. Of course, there were others who rejoiced in Gay’s resignation.

Yes, many across higher education thought Gay, along with the presidents of Penn and MIT fumbled their testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce this past December, giving unacceptable answers. When Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) asked the presidents if calls for the genocide of Jews violate their campus rules of conduct, rather than emphatically saying “yes” — and perhaps adding a follow-up statement providing more context, the presidents failed to answer in a direct manner. They did what most college and university presidents are trained to do: say very little, avoid committing to a firm perspective, and stress that context matters.

After a near immediate backlash, Gay apologized. Specifically, she said in an interview with The Harvard Crimson: “I am sorry. Words matter.” She then added, “There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.” The addition is what her critics wanted to hear during the hearing.

The case of Gay’s resignation is a complex one. Racism played a part as there is ample evidence across the history of higher education presidencies that white men in the same position would likely have been spared a resignation — their leadership trusted, their apologies accepted. Sexism was present, with all three presidents called to the congressional hearing being women who were new in their positions. Their leadership and qualifications were held suspect and questioned even before the hearings by some groups. Note that both Penn’s Liz Magill and Gay were followed by white men in the interim president position.

Antisemitism was involved, with many Jewish students on the Harvard campus (as well as at Penn and MIT) calling for a response to antisemitic acts on campus. Money and philanthropy were involved, with high-profile alumni donors expressing anger at what they felt was a lack of response to antisemitism on the Harvard campus. Free speech and academic freedom were involved, with the presidents trying desperately to protect these ideals against outsiders with their legal statements at the House hearing. And lastly, academic integrity was brought to the fore with accusations of plagiarism against Gay. All of these factors — and arguably more — make the situation at Harvard messy and difficult to analyze with a dualistic lens.

Gay’s apology brings to light many of the issues. Her words make clear her realization that her apology didn’t matter to her critics. Gay also makes evident her understanding of the politics of division taking place on campuses and outside of them, stating, that it is “painful to witness the tensions and divisions that have riven our community in recent months, weakening the bonds of trust and reciprocity that should be our sources of strength and support in times of crisis.” She points to the cruel irony of being a Black woman and being accused of failing to confront hate, stating “it has been distressing to have doubt cast on my commitments to confronting hate and to upholding scholarly rigor—two bedrock values that are fundamental to who I am.” In this statement, she also pushes back at the idea that she is not a rigorous scholar, and in effect the accusations of plagiarism.

Gay will return to the faculty at Harvard as a tenured professor. In offering her resignation, she used it as a way to teach, stating “I believe in the people of Harvard because I see in you the possibility and the promise of a better future. These last weeks have helped make clear the work we need to do to build that future—to combat bias and hate in all its forms, to create a learning environment in which we respect each other’s dignity and treat one another with compassion, and to affirm our enduring commitment to open inquiry and free expression in the pursuit of truth. I believe we have within us all that we need to heal from this period of tension and division and to emerge stronger.” Although her critics might not agree, Gay’s resignation displays grace, and a hopefulness that many in her position might not have the patience or courage to show.

Lastly, while Gay was accused of not doing enough on the Harvard campus to combat antisemitism, she herself has been the victim of racism, sexism, and hate amid this controversy. As she shared, it is “frightening to be subjected to personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus.” Given the immense stress she faced, and recent reports of two Black women dying unexpectedly while serving in their presidential leadership roles, perhaps Gay’s choice was a matter of self-preservation in addition to her stated preservation of Harvard.