At a meeting of the Harvard Medical School (HMS) faculty shortly after Charles W. Eliot, Class of 1853, assumed Harvard’s presidency, professor Henry Bigelow questioned the new president about sweeping changes that Eliot had proposed—including the shocking requirement that students pass all their classes to get a degree. Bigelow pointed out that HMS had been “managing its own affairs well” for quite some time and inquired why Eliot felt dramatic change was necessary. Eliot responded, “I can answer Dr. Bigelow’s question very easily; there is a new president.”

The Search for a President an editorial series Previous editorials: Harvard's Gatekeeper Educating the Educators To the Presidential Search Committee

Harvard is at a similar juncture today. In five short months, there will again be a new president, the institution is direly in need of change, and the faculty is entrenched in its ways and on the whole resistant to much needed progress. It is hard to fathom Harvard’s 28th president being quite as blunt as Eliot was the outset of his administration—particularly in light of the events that transpired one year ago, which abruptly ended Lawrence H. Summers’ short tenure. Harvard is, however, badly in need of another Eliot, a dreamer who will take risks and challenge the Harvard community to push itself to its limits. We hope that the presidential search committee has the courage to select such an individual rather than a “safe” choice who will kowtow to Harvard’s many and varied constituencies.

The need for a bold and innovative president could hardly be more urgent. The University stands at an unprecedented crossroads, both physically and philosophically. Across the Charles, over 200 acres of raw potential are waiting to be shaped into Harvard’s other half. Advancement in the sciences and the development of interdisciplinary inquiry are among the University’s most critical priorities for the preservation of its global academic prominence and the fulfillment of its effort to serve society. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard’s academic heart, continues to grapple with fundamental questions of pedagogy and curriculum. Despite some progress, undergraduate education and life remain at the periphery of the University’s agenda. The solutions that the next president brings to these challenges will exert a profound impact on the future of Harvard for generations to come.

Yet an individual who will aggressively and proactively address these challenges will likely not be an uncontroversial choice. The Faculty is set in its ways and content with its perch in the ivory tower so long as their personal fiefdoms are not intruded upon. Alumni are nostalgic for the way things used to be. And students—often the most discontented—will be alumni in less than four years and typically don’t feel the influence of Harvard’s president in the short term. An uncontroversial choice would be a prolific writer of open letters, a master fundraiser, and a pretty face who lacks an overall vision. An uncontroversial choice, in short, is precisely what the University does not need at this point. The stakes for Harvard’s future are simply too high.

That’s not to say that the presidential search committee should select a leader who lacks the tact necessary to avoid getting caught Harvard’s political spider web. Indeed, the president must work constructively with Harvard’s various faculties, inspire alumni and students alike to join in their vision, and communicate persuasively with donors. The president need not be an agitator. But the presidential search committee must not be afraid to take a leap of faith in selecting a bold leader—as it did six years ago when it selected Lawrence H. Summers—rather than simply a uniter and a conciliator who will let the University drift as it will.

If the presidential search committee’s increasingly frequent clandestine meetings are any indication, it is on the verge of making its final choice. We hope that before the members of the search committee do so, however, they take a step back and consider which candidate will best follow in the footsteps of presidents who have revolutionized both higher education and Harvard itself.

Such a choice will inherently be risky—but so was the choice of Eliot some 138 years ago. Indeed, Eliot’s nomination was unsuccessfully blocked by the Board of Overseers, which was concerned that Eliot might enact too many sweeping changes. History, however, has more than vindicated Eliot’s place as a giant in the evolution of higher education, and Harvard would not enjoy its modern distinction were it not for his leadership. Today, the members of the presidential search committee have the opportunity to make an equally momentous choice. Harvard’s future depends on their resolve and fortitude.