Harvard has argued in federal court that its research helps “preserve American security.” Research important to national security can also come with security risks — and a responsibility to manage them.
Last week, two House committees released a report questioning whether Harvard adequately manages those risks in its relationships with China.
Across nine findings, the report argues that Harvard hasn’t sufficiently accounted for national security risks, whether by treating only legal compliance as its operating standard, lacking the infrastructure to identify risks consistently, or maintaining an affiliated entity that can receive funding when Harvard is “unable to accept the sponsor’s terms due to legal or financial reasons.”
Regardless of the report’s broader characterizations of Harvard, it still raises questions worth taking seriously.
One question is: Can Harvard actually see the full picture? The report says the House committees repeatedly requested a complete list of Chinese universities collaborating with Harvard. Harvard said compiling one would be cumbersome and provided a spreadsheet with fewer than 50 entries, which the House committees considered incomplete. They concluded Harvard was “either unwilling or unable” to provide a complete accounting.
Harvard’s potentially less-than-complete list doesn't prove any collaboration posed a national security risk, but it does raise the question of whether a university as decentralized as Harvard can identify collaborations across its schools and programs — a prerequisite for internal oversight.
A second question is whether Harvard’s compliance processes work as intended. Harvard’s Senior Vice Provost for Research, John Shaw, said the University had procedures to vet executive education enrollees.
Yet the report says Harvard didn’t identify a potential sanctions issue when a 2020 “signup sheet” for a Harvard School of Public Health program for Chinese government officials on universal health insurance included the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury that year. Professor Winnie Yip, who leads the program, testified she received no training on research security or sanctions compliance. This appears to be one example of a process breakdown; the report doesn’t tell us how often similar situations occurred.
A third question is how Harvard evaluates national security risks the law doesn’t account for. Harvard’s research collaborations with Chinese institutions can often happen because they involve “fundamental research” — research intended for broad publication rather than classification. But legally permissible fundamental research can still have potential military applications, leaving universities to decide when the national security risk is too great.
Asked how Harvard distinguishes between military and nonmilitary applications, Shaw pointed to federal guidance and said Harvard assesses whether an activity is “of a nature” that raises national security concerns. His testimony didn’t make clear what criteria Harvard applies beyond the law, or whether such judgments are too project-specific for a single framework.
Perhaps the report’s biggest unanswered question is how systemic any problems are. Yip’s case is one of several where the report provides an anecdote or raw count without enough context to distinguish isolated mistakes from recurring issues. It’s unclear whether Congress lacked that information, Harvard failed to provide it, or the House Committees omitted it.
Harvard has pushed back, saying it “disagrees with the report’s mischaracterizations” and pointing to its “documented record of compliance, cooperation, and commitment” to U.S. interests and national security.
Harvard doesn’t need to accept the characterizations of this report to use it as an opportunity to give the public a clearer basis to evaluate the systems underpinning its work that remains out of view.
Some national security-related work may be too sensitive to disclose publicly. But where possible, Harvard could publish information on how it makes national security-related decisions, how it trains its faculty and staff to approach national security-related risks, and how it tracks its research partnerships. That includes findings from any self-assessment on whether those systems are working as intended or where they might need improvement.
Ask 1636
Send us your Harvard and higher education questions!
Q: Is the Harvard College Writing Center being dismantled as part of FAS’s restructuring and layoffs?
Not exactly. An Atlantic article this week described Harvard as “dismantling” its Writing Center, but the College is eliminating the Center as a standalone administrative unit, not ending its one-on-one student tutoring service program for writing.
As part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’s (FAS) restructuring, Harvard laid off longtime Writing Center director Jane Rosenzweig and moved oversight of writing tutors to the Academic Resource Center (ARC). But Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh (PhD ‘01) says students will continue “with the same tutors, trained in the same ways, doing the same invaluable work with students.”
If you find our newsletter valuable, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to support 1636 Forum’s mission.
Events
Chicago, IL — September 16 from 5:00-7:00 p.m. CT: The Harvard Club of Chicago is hosting FAS government professor Eric Beerbohm, who is Faculty Director of the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics and FAS Senior Adviser on Civil Discourse, to discuss the state of civil discourse at Harvard and in higher ed. Register here.
Cambridge, MA — September 17 from 4:20-6:00 p.m. ET: Meet Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Dean Jeremy Weinstein (PhD ’03) at this HKS on the Road series event. The event will be followed by HKS’s annual Malcolm H. Wiener Lecture in International Political Economy, this year featuring Nicholas Kristof (AB ‘82). Register here.
Virtual — September 22 from 12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. ET: The Harvard Alumni Association is hosting President Alan Garber (AB ’76, PhD ’82) for an off-the-record conversation about the University’s priorities, progress on campus, and Garber’s vision for Harvard’s future. Register here.
FYIs
FAS Completes Administrative Restructuring With Final Round of Cuts; 165 Total Positions Eliminated
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) said its administrative workforce restructuring is now complete after a final round of layoffs and job changes last week. The restructuring was undertaken as a dual response to FAS’s longstanding, $350+ million annual structural deficit and a workforce planning review that found its administrative model had become “complex, fragmented, and difficult to navigate.”
In its latest and final round of changes, FAS laid off 40 employees: 19 in the Arts & Humanities division (out of 144 in-scope positions), 20 in the Science division (out of 286 in-scope), and one in the FAS Dean’s office. Another 73 across units were given the option of a new role or a layoff.
Across this summer’s restructuring, FAS eliminated 165 total positions — about 10% of positions potentially subject to the process — while another 24% moved into new or changed positions. The Crimson previously reported that FAS could lay off up to 25% of administrative staff in the restructuring.
The Social Science division and the Institute for Quantitative Social Science (IQSS) saw the largest reduction of positions proportionally, with 58 out of 252 in-scope positions eliminated.
The ultimate change in FAS headcount remains unclear, as employees whose positions were eliminated can apply for newly-created roles. Under the new FAS administrative structure, developed with consulting firm McKinsey & Company, FAS is moving to a more “federated” model that shifts some administrative functions from individual academic units to centralized offices.
Harvard Advises International Students To Return Before New Visa Rule Takes Effect
The Harvard International Office (HIO) is advising its enrollees holding F-1 and J-1 visas (international students and exchange students and scholars, respectively) to be in the U.S. by September 15, when a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule takes effect. The new policy replaces the longstanding “duration of status” system — which generally allowed students to remain in the U.S. for the length of their academic program — with fixed admission periods up to four years.
Students and scholars already in the U.S. on September 15 will receive transitional treatment under the rule, while those who enter or reenter afterward will immediately become subject to the new fixed-term system. In either case, those who need to remain in the U.S. beyond four years would eventually have to apply to the federal government for an extension.
A coalition of higher education groups and labor unions sued DHS this week seeking to block the rule. Harvard is a member of two of the plaintiff organizations, though Harvard itself isn’t a named plaintiff.
President Alan Garber (AB ’76, PhD ’82) previously called the four-year limit “odd” given that PhD programs typically exceed that duration, and warned that it could discourage international students from pursuing PhD programs in the U.S.
Harvard Medical School Agrees to $53 Million Settlement Over Morgue Scandal
Harvard Medical School (HMS) has agreed to a $53 million settlement to resolve civil lawsuits accusing the school of negligence after former morgue manager Cedric Lodge stole and sold human remains donated to HMS. Federal prosecutors said Lodge removed body parts from cadavers between 2018 and 2022; he was sentenced to eight years in prison in December 2025.
The settlement will establish two funds for affected families. HMS also pledged to provide affected families with a statement saying Lodge’s criminal acts were “morally reprehensible”; provide the families with an account of reforms made to the Anatomical Gift Program; and establish an annual financial aid scholarship for medical students beginning in 2027-28 honoring anatomical donors.
After Lodge’s indictment in 2023, Harvard appointed an outside panel to review the program, which recommended changes across governance, policies, communications, specimens, collections, and facilities. HMS says all of those recommendations have now been implemented.
The payment comes as HMS Chief Financial Officer Julie Joncas (MBA ’00) departs to become the new Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) CFO.
HMS also ran deficits in nine of ten years between 2008 and 2018. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2022, it reported positive discretionary cash flow for the first time since 2009, but still posted operating losses of $28 million in FY23 and $27 million in FY24. (Discretionary cash flow measures near-term financial flexibility, while HMS’ operating losses reflect structural imbalances between ongoing expenses and reliable revenue.)
More News
More News at Harvard
Harvard Gazette: “IOP announces fall 2026 fellows” — feat. former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo (AB ‘93) and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Chris Lu (JD ‘91)
The Crimson: “First Year Urban Program Director Laid Off Amid FAS Restructuring”
Harvard Kennedy School: “A Letter from the Alumni Board Chair” — by HKS Alumni Board chair Duriya Farooqui (MPA/ID ‘01)
The Boston Globe: “Almost 130,000 People Work at Mass. Universities. Many Are Now on the ‘Chopping Blocks.’”
New York Post: “Harvard Professor Slammed for Using AI to Write Anti-Trump Op-Ed” — feat. HKS professor of the practice Ricardo Hausmann
The Atlantic: “Alan Dershowitz Won’t Forget What Larry David Did to Him” — feat. HLS professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz
Bloomberg: “Harvard Students Can Cope With Getting a B” — op-ed by Harvard University professor Noah Feldman (AB ’92)
Washington Post: “Trump’s Harvard Loss Conceals a Strategic Victory” — by Washington Post staff writer Jason Willick
More News Beyond Harvard
Wall Street Journal: “Trump Administration Attacks Bar Association’s Power to Accredit Law Schools”
The New York Times: “China Hunts for Scientific Talent. The U.S. Is Making It Easier.”
Columbia Daily Spectator: “Law School Introduces Largely Permissive AI Policy”
The Dartmouth: “Dartmouth Students Begin Receiving Payments from 2022 Financial Aid Class Action Settlement”
U.S. Department of Education: “U.S. Department of Education Issues Proposed Rule to Overhaul and Improve America’s Higher Education Accreditation System”
National Association of Scholars: “UT Austin Rebuilds Its Core”
University of North Carolina: “UNC System responds to U.S. Secretary of Education’s National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards”
The New York Times: “What Do Students Lose When They Stop Writing?”
The Economist: “Does AI Stop Children From Learning?”
Nature: “NIH proposes major revamp of how it scores research grant proposals”
Jewish Insider: “Raskin Claims Administration’s Campus Antisemitism Probes Were ‘Fake,’ Schools Were Framed”
eJewishPhilanthropy: “Ruderman, Project Shema Team Up to Boost Awareness of Antisemitism’s Impact on Mental Health on Campus” — feat. Project Shema, which has held trainings on antisemitism at Harvard College, HBS, and HSPH
Inside Higher Ed: “ED Clarifies How Current Students Can Access Uncapped Loans”
Chronicle of Higher Education: “The Academic Integrity Council Can’t Keep Up With AI”
Inside Higher Ed: “Almost Half of Colleges Haven’t Fully Submitted Student Data”
Inside Higher Ed: “The Heated Discourse About Civil Discourse”
Town & Country: “The State of the College Newspaper”
The New York Times: “Professor’s Death Leaves Behind Hard Questions for Cambridge on Race and Hiring”
Abundance and Growth: “AI Peer Review Goes Pro” — by Coefficient Giving grantmaker Jordan Dworkin
Chronicle of Higher Education: “Jason Arday and Me” — by Musa al-Gharbi, author of We Have Never Been Woke
City Journal: “Why Is the University of Michigan Hiding Grades?” — op-ed by Manhattan Institute education policy researcher Neetu Arnold
MS Now: “This College Addressed Its Antisemitism Problem the Right Way” — op-ed by director of the New School’s International Affairs program Michael A. Cohen