The Annual Report Has a Different Role Under Rudenstine

Bound volumes of presidential reports dating back more than 150 years cover a shelf on the back wall of the University Archives and contain the yearly musings of Harvard presidents throughout some of the biggest changes in the University's history.

Each president has brought his own unique style and concerns to the reports, and President Neil L. Rudenstine has been no exception.

Possibly the most obvious difference between Rudenstine and his immediate predecessors is that his annual reports are not annual: this report is only the second in Rudenstine's five-year tenure.

Rudenstine said in an interview Friday that he intends to maintain this pace, citing the lengthy research process that went into writing this report.

Indeed, the sheer amount of historical research that went into preparing this year's report was unusual as well. Rudenstine's predecessors often used their reports to address specific issues from the previous year or challenges on the horizon.

The annual report of then-President Nathan M. Pusey '28 for the year 1969-1970, for example, dealt with the violent student protests of that year and other issues in student-administration relations.

The reports written by Rudenstine's immediate predecessor, Derek C. Bok, also tried to frame pressing issues and present solutions, according to at least one longtime professor.

"He went for what was the highest priority for Harvard and for education," said Leverett Professor Jerry R. Green, a former provost who resigned amid reports that he did not get along with Rudenstine. "He was a lawyer and would give you his full analysis of both sides."

Others' reports addressed the president's personal vision for new directions Harvard should take. One example is a series of reports by Charles W. Eliot, Class of 1853, around the turn of the century that called for changes to make Harvard more diverse.

While Rudenstine cites these reports in his, he said in the interview that he is not attempting anything comparable.

"I'm not claiming to be novel here," Rudenstine said. "In some senses, quite the opposite."

Indeed, Rudenstine brings forth many of the same points about diversity, affirmative action in admissions, the validity of test scores and the duty of the University that were raised by Bok 15 years ago in his book Beyond the Ivory Tower: Social Responsibilities of the Modern University.

Rudenstine said Friday that the report was written in some senses as an affirmation of Harvard's current policy.

"I wanted to fill out the debate where I could find evidence and to reaffirm what we're doing," Rudenstine said. "Given the fact that there is considerable questioning on the issue, I wanted to put out what I have to say as a part of the discussion."

Rudenstine characterized his first report, released in 1993, as more of a "state of the University" assessment. The 1993 report was both more Harvard-specific and more focused on problems to be fixed and changes to be implemented, the president said.

But the president said that this year's report should not just be seen as an endorsement of the status quo.

"Given the fact that the issue is in play and under debate, there is a malleable status quo. It's a shifting situation. I'm not simply endorsing what everybody agrees with," Rudenstine said Friday.

While Rudenstine said he enjoyed the research aspect of this report, it is not a format that he will necessarily continue using in the future. --Andrew A. Green