{shortcode-0945aacedf2825faf725aa64aef374a2155d5d2f}

Recent years have brought with them a growing movement to critically examine Harvard’s history and legacy as it stands at odds with the University’s views on diversity, inclusivity, and multiculturalism today. One of the latest stories in this saga has been the announcement by incoming Lowell House Faculty Deans David I. Laibson ’88 and Nina Zipser that portraits of former University President A. Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877, and his wife Anna Parker Lowell will not hang in the House’s dining hall upon reopening this fall after renovations.

We support Laibson and Zipser’s decision. Lowell’s contributions to and legacy on Harvard’s history have been fraught and complicated. His tenure as president — spanning from 1909 to 1933 — brought with it many institutional changes, most positively the creation of the House system.

Lowell’s legacy, however, has been deeply overshadowed by and cannot be disentangled from from his racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and xenophobia. His presidency was marked by events such as failed attempts to institute quotas of Jewish students, as well as the segregation of black students, banning them from living in Harvard Yard, and the “Secret Court of 1920,” which was connected to the suicide of a gay undergraduate.

Significantly, Laibson and Zipser have also declared their intent to host several House-wide conversations on the significance of Lowell’s legacy. History, they correctly note, should not be forgotten or erased in an email to House affiliates. We hope these discussions will spark a nuanced discussion on the former president’s actions and what those actions not only represented in his day but also in our present one, as we recognize it is important to consider individuals within the context of the time period in which they lived. Removing the portrait is not erasure, as long as doing so is accompanied by conversations that allow students to do the hard work of complicating, contextualizing, and making sense of Lowell’s legacy and impact — something which this campus has yet to seriously do.

We would be remiss if we did not note that the University has taken positive steps to address the legacy of many of its more positive figures, who are often overlooked. For example, three years ago the University displayed the portrait of Richard T. Greener, who in 1870 became Harvard’s first black graduate, in Annenberg Hall. This new portrait demonstrates how in thoughtfully representing its history, the University must not only think about removing monuments to figures who may not cohere with its evolving values but also erect new ones to those who we can take pride and who may expand our sense of what it means to be a member of this community.

With the reopening of the renovated Lowell House this August, we believe it is the perfect time for the House to reaffirm its own values, while potentially establishing new ones. History is imperfect, but it is only through constant discussion, questioning, and informed debate that we can properly understand what its legacy means to us today — for we are the ones who bear its lasting marks.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.