Although Harvard College’s decision to reimburse student groups for the “gift tax” is a welcome development, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ (FAS) refusal to rescind the tax or lend formal support to the College’s reimbursement is deeply troubling. The tax is unfair and, contrary to Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles’ justification for his action, could be easily rolled back. Knowles should reverse course on the gift tax, which is symptomatic of the apathy toward student life that seems to have gripped University Hall.

Any subunit of FAS—including undergraduate student groups—can open gift accounts that FAS administers. Alumni can make tax deductible donations directly to them, and the Harvard Management Company manages the funds as if they were part of the rest of Harvard’s endowment. For student groups, the accounts have the added benefit of providing donors with the security of knowing that the groups can only withdraw from the accounts for specific purposes. The gift tax is a levy on any withdrawal that an FAS subunit makes from its own gift account. Without prior notice, in September FAS announced that student groups would have to pay the tax.

This tax, as it applies to student groups, is unfair and counterproductive. For starters, the tax—which is five percent this year and will rise to 15 percent in two years—applies to withdrawals of donations made before the announcement of the tax. Donors who intended for all of their money to go to a student group would have had portions of their money siphoned off by FAS. Although the University does not guarantee that all the money will go to a group when it receives a gift, this practice is disingenuous.

The tax is also unfair because it was sprung on student groups without advance notice. Unlike some subunits of FAS, many student groups can become independent, tax-exempt non-profit organizations, and might have already taken the opportunity to do so if they knew that their donations would be taxed. Before applying a tax, the University should have notified student groups so they could consider how to respond.

Additionally, the tax disproportionately affects student groups, which already have small budgets. Given that some groups rely on these accounts as their lifeblood—unlike most other FAS subunits—the tax uniquely harms student life.

Thankfully, after considerable pressure, Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 wisely decided to reimburse student groups for it. Yet this is not a total victory for students, as the funds for the reimbursements are coming from the College’s budget, so there is still a net loss of funds for student life.



The debate over the gift tax, however, is about more than a mere $15,000 per year (the total cost of a 15 percent tax at last year’s withdrawal levels). It is also a symbolic fight against the rapidly eroding interest in student life within University Hall.

Last month, justifiably angry student group leaders and Undergraduate Council members protested outside the Faculty meeting and subsequently met with Knowles. He turned down their request to repeal the tax, citing the fact that the tax was a FAS-wide policy and that it would be improper micromanagement for him to intervene.

Knowles’ excuse is tremendously weak. Given the unique position of student groups (relative to other gift account holders in FAS) and the small relative size of these groups, Knowles could have easily lifted the tax for the small number of gift accounts held by student groups. At the very least, he could have suspended it for a year to allow student groups to take appropriate actions in response to the tax. Such an action would not have been warrantless micromanagement; it would have demonstrated a prioritizing of student life.

Throughout Harvard’s history, student life has suffered and only began to improve tangibly over the last few years. Aging dining halls were renovated. Lamont was made into a 24-hour library with a café. A pub is being built. Hilles was turned into student group office space, albeit an inconveniently located one.

Much of this can be attributed to the student-friendly approach of former University President Lawrence H. Summers and represented in the College’s administration by former Deputy Dean of the College Patricia O’Brien. These administrators saw that Harvard lagged behind its peers in student satisfaction surveys. Rather than simply asserting that Harvard will attract top students regardless of how it treats them and ignoring the problem as was done in the past, they worked proactively and gave student life a much-needed infusion of money.

Since Knowles has taken over, however, the student-friendly attitude seems to have disappeared. O’Brien’s firing this summer was the first indication, and the gift tax is the first concrete issue on which Knowles’ apparent indifference toward student interests is nakedly apparent. He is treating students as just another FAS constituency rather than as a central element of FAS’ mission that deserves extra attention. This de-prioritization of undergraduates has, in the past, led to horrifying misuses of University resources. To give one stark example, the University built a library administration building on frat row (Mt. Auburn St.) and built student group offices into an old library in the Quad.

While the inner machinations of University Hall remain unclear, it is clear that administrators are paying lip service to the importance of student life while little progress is being made beyond projects previously in the works. When, for instance, will FAS begin to make tangible improvements in undergraduate teaching? When will it take steps to reinvigorate house life? The diversion of focus from issues such as these is evidence enough that there needs to be a long term change in University Hall’s attitude.



Such a long-term change will only be possible if the next University president—and the next dean of the Faculty—understands the importance of students to the institution and is committed to actively working to improve student life. The single greatest service Presidential Search Committee can do for the student body is to select a president who cares for and is willing to stick out his or her neck out for students. If the Committee fails, the result—another generation of student concerns on the backburner—could be devastating to the College.