To the Editor: Sharing the Experiences and Perspectives of Professor Schrag's Former Students and Postdocs

As Professor Daniel P. Schrag’s former students and postdoctoral researchers, we believe whole-heartedly that his scientific mentorship, professional guidance, and personal support have been essential to our careers. We further believe that the Crimson article published on April 28, 2023 fails to fully and accurately represent Professor Schrag’s outstanding legacy of scientific mentorship.

The Crimson article makes claims of a persistent pattern of bullying, relating the negative experiences of two Ph.D. students in particular. We cannot speak to the experiences of others, but our signatures below (which greatly outnumber the article’s named negative sources), demonstrate a persistent pattern of positive mentorship spanning nearly 20 years.

The article describes Professor Schrag being combative during scientific discussions, stating: “At ClimaTea, eight sources said Schrag and many other faculty members would often vigorously interrogate speakers or argue with one another, with many describing the behavior as non-constructive and aggressive.” We agree that Professor Schrag can be tough when challenging the hypotheses and methods of his students.

But we continue to believe getting to have had such discussions to be a gift, as great scientists aren’t born; they’re made. Professor Schrag treats his students as he would treat colleagues by engaging in rapid, often intense, scientific discussions, expecting students to be knowledgeable and creative enough to hold their own. It is only through iterations of conjecture and refutation that new knowledge is created, and becoming a scientist requires repeatedly experiencing this difficult process. Professor Schrag’s high expectations and detailed engagement prepared us well for our careers.

Certainly, no Ph.D. or postdoctoral experience is without its challenges, whether professional or personal, but in his lab group, we all found a supportive environment where we could grow intellectually and personally. We all have stories of when Professor Schrag supported us outside the laboratory, with challenges in our personal or broader professional lives. We know that if we needed him, he would be there for us.

In short, the Crimson article is not an accurate portrayal of our experiences. While we do not discount the experiences of others, the reporting appeared to be carried out with the intention of painting a negative picture. Many of us felt, when we were contacted by The Crimson, that the reporters were searching for dirt, rather than seeking the truth. For instance, after one of the below signatories stated, by email, favorable views of Professor Schrag, The Crimson never followed up. Another signatory who wrote to The Crimson about their positive experiences with the professor had to proactively contact the newspaper a year later after never hearing back to get their statement included; she was never interviewed.

It took preemptive action on our part to have our stories included; we believe the reporters had little interest in reporting on our positive experiences. Furthermore, more than 85 percent of the article is allocated to negative opinions, even though the number of named sources is three negative to five positive.

The inclusion of the broader Earth and Planetary Sciences departmental climate survey implies that Professor Schrag is primarily at fault for a more systemic issue. Every department has room for improvement, but we are confident from our experiences that being part of the EPS department has been positive, transformative, and inspiring for many students and postdoctoral fellows. Further, the article fails to mention the backdrop against which the survey (and the negative experiences of two of the three named sources) occurred — a global pandemic — during which many relationships were strained and normal challenges were exacerbated.

All of us have benefited deeply from the mentorship, supportive guidance, and friendship of Prof. Schrag. We hope that many more aspiring young scientists will have the benefit of his tutelage.

Kurt Z. House graduated with a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences in 2008. Sierra V. Petersen graduated from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences with a Masters degree in 2012 and a Ph.D. in 2014. Julie K. Shoemaker graduated with a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of Arts in Sciences in 2010 and was a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard until 2014.

A full list of signatories to this letter may be found at this link.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.