Dear Dean Allison...

On Monday the Student Advisory Committee of the Institute of Politics at the Kennedy School of Government sent a letter to the school's dean. Graham T. Allison '62, asking that the name of the Engelhard Library of Public Affairs be changed. The following is an edited version of that letter.

Dear Dean Allison:

The Engelhard affair causes us to confront the dilemma shared by all private universities and non-profit institutions which depend on funds from outside sources for survival: the acceptance of gifts from particular private and corporate sources may unduly compromise the university's role in the wider community and its autonomy in making moral and educational decisions. This dilemma is especially acute for a School of Government where decisions to honor donors by agreeing to conditions of gifts, such as names, might conflict with the ideals such a School seeks to teach.

We feel that attaching a name to a school, a building, or a library, clearly carries symbolic significance. The name John F. Kennedy evokes a spirit of public service which pervades the Kennedy School community and which the School seeks to instill in its graduates. At the Kennedy School of Government, the only school in the University to bear someone's name, names are unusually salient. Thus, we find it particularly unfortunate that the public affairs library of the Kennedy School has been named for a man who played an important role in promulgating a society whose values run contrary to the Kennedy School's and our own. Although no symbolic significance to the Engelhard Library may have been intended when the donation from the Engelhard Foundation was sought, the importance of the name is highlighted by its contrast to the name of the School.

We feel the Kennedy School of Government suffers many unfortunate consequences stemming from the Engelhard name on its library. To begin with, organized and individual boycotts of the library have succeeded in reducing its usage, diminishing its value as an educational tool. More importantly, the symbolic Engelhard-Kennedy contradiction breeds skepticism among students for the perspective the School and its teachings bring to public affairs. In the future, the name of the public affairs library may prevent high quality students from applying for or accepting admission to the Kennedy School of Government. Donors may shun the School which honors apartheid in the name of its library, or may not want their name in the same building as Engelhard's. And if the Kennedy School of Government downplays the significance of the name on the library, the value of a name in the School will be diminished, thus jeopardizing the use of names as a fund-raising technique.

For the future of the Kennedy School of Government and its programs, for the sustenance of the spirit of public service the Kennedy School represents, and for fear of honoring Charles Engelhard and the society from which he profited, we feel the name of the Engelhard Public Affairs Library should be changed.

We recognize the complexities involved in changing the name, but we feel that a carefully-considered and sensitively-conceived program could alleviate the potential consequences, which include embarrassment to the Foundation, the task of replacing the donation, and the risk of alienating future donors.

You have stated that to change the name would "give offense and demonstrate insensitivity to many people who are dedicated to this University, and its purposes, and whose financial contributions make possible our independent pursuit of learning." The rights of and effects on future donors is a difficult and important area. It is our opinion that the success of the fund-raising process may not suffer should the name of the library be changed. It may be instructive to look at changed. It may be instructive to look at history. In the case of Dr. Ernst F. Hanfstaengl '09, who made a public offer to the University in 1934 of the Hanfstaengl Travelling Fellowship, President Conant's ('14) public rejection of the money because of the donor's association with the Nazi Party was widely publicized. However, no widespread revulsion towards the University followed. If we felt that changing the Engelhard name would imperil the existence of the School or the University, we would not suggest changing the name.

Since we believe that the negative consequences of acting to change the name are outweighed by the damaging effects to the School of allowing the Engelhard name to remain, the agreement ought to be reconsidered. Two options present themselves.

Should the Engelhard Foundation be amenable to changing the name, within the context of the current agreement between the University and the Foundation, the negative consequences would be minimized. The short-lived embarrassment the Foundation and the School may face in the course of changing the name would save them both the even greater long-term discomfort surrounding the permanently-named Engelhard Library subjected to persistent public ridicule.

However, if discussions with the Foundation are unproductive, and the Foundation is unwilling to allow the name of the library to be altered, then the only remaining option is for the University to take steps to dissolve the agreement. We would recommend that the University offer to return the money, and upon consent of the Foundation, undo the agreement, remove the name, and seek an alternative source of funds.

We feel it essential that formal guidelines for the consideration of accepting a gift be established. The guidelines should allow for input from all components of the Kennedy School community. The lack of consultation with faculty and students both before and after the acceptance of the Engelhard gift was perhaps as inconsistent with Kennedy School ideals as the current name of the library.

We would recommend that a small, representative advisory group of faculty, students, and development officers be established to examine potential gifts to the Kennedy School. The review should concentrate on the conditions of the donations in the light of certain criteria; the group would not review unrestricted gifts to the general fund. We have proposed to the Director that a similar group be formed for the Institute of Politics.

Criteria for the group are very difficult to develop. A fine line applicable in all situations cannot be drawn. In the end, the actions of this group must be based on the wise judgment of its members who must take into account the weight of their decisions and their impact on the financial well-being of the University. Moreover, when presuming to judge the actions of individuals we pose the danger of making elitist and self-serving decisions. To guard against this danger and to be fair to donors, criteria must be developed to the fullest extent possible.

We recommend that the School reject donations if the following conditions are attached: one, if they involve accepting money made in the United States in ways that violate U.S. law; two, if they pose a direct threat to academic freedom; and three, if they seek to honor someone associated with actions that, in the words of President Conant in 1934, strike "at principles fundamental to universities throughout the world." We also agree with the 1969 statement of former Princeton President Goheen in asserting that it is fundamental to the purposes of a university to contribute towards alleviating ignorance, racism, and bigotry. We believe that Charles Engelhard led his life in conflict with these essential principles.

We feel that the breakdown in relations between undergraduates and the administration in the 1960's lingers on today in the reluctance of the University to give much if any weight to undergraduate positions. Although the undergraduate perspective may have an inherently idealistic flavor, a respectful dialogue between students and administration is indispensable to the health of the University and its environment. As the Kennedy School of Government expends an unusual amount of its resources on programs for Harvard undergraduates through the Institute of Politics, and must encourage more Harvard undergraduates to apply to its graduate programs, an open, honest, and sensitive relationships between the School and the undergraduate community can only serve the School's best interests. Respectfully yours,   Jack S. Bloom '79   Chairman, Student Advisory Committee   Peter L. Slavin '79   Chairman, Ad Hoc Engelhard Library Subcommittee