{shortcode-b849b77fcedf67f86f39ead9a16aff5d51e7078a}

It felt like the inevitable ending: Harvard’s interim President Alan M. Garber ’76 has shed his “interim” tag and officially become President Garber.

I welcome this development. Indeed, after seven months at the helm with no presidential search process yet begun, it was easy to forget that Garber was still only an “interim” president at all.

But ironically, despite the change in title, the Harvard Corporation, the University’s top governing board, has only made it more clear that they view him as simply an interim president, announcing that they will search for his eventual successor at the end of the 2026-2027 academic year.

Though I applaud Garber’s three-year extension — not an insignificant amount of time — I wonder why the Harvard Corporation would limit Garber’s presidency at all.

Garber has masterfully steered Harvard through some of its most difficult times. Following the tumultuous fall semester of 2023, it was abundantly clear that Harvard needed a steady hand on the tiller. Between the resignation of former President Claudine Gay amid serious accusations of plagiarism, congressional investigations, donor revolt, and a deeply divided student body, Garber had much to do.

In the face of these challenges, Garber proved himself to be not only a capable leader, but exactly the leader we needed.

He made numerous trips to assuage donor concerns. He made needed clarifications to the rules governing student protest — to the chagrin of protestors, but to the relief of those of us who wish to go to college without the constant national spotlight. He committed Harvard to a policy of institutional neutrality, which should help prevent campus divisions like we saw in the wake of Oct. 7. And he handled a pro-Palestine encampment in the Yard far more deftly than many of our peer institutions and their non-interim leaders.

With these resounding successes, it is puzzling that the Corporation is already planning on — nay, expediting — a post-Garber Harvard.

I fear the Corporation is selling Garber short in pursuit of someone younger, fresher, or flashier. I will be the first to admit that a Garber presidency is not what many would think of as exciting. But after all the excitement of the past year, would some tranquility and time out of the spotlight be such a bad thing for Harvard?

It is far from clear that Harvard needs transformational leadership. If anything, his actions have shown that such a change is not only unwarranted, but unwise. It is the students, faculty, researchers that make this institution great — not Massachusetts Hall.

Due in no small part to Garber, Harvard is in a significantly better position to tackle the challenges of the coming decades than it was mere months ago. His steady leadership has quelled the media storm, giving us space to make decisions about the future with less of the pressure of public scrutiny.

Just compare how often Harvard appeared in the headlines during the fall of 2023 with the spring of 2024, even with the encampment. The contrast is quite stark.

No doubt there were many circumstances entirely out of Gay’s control as she attempted to steward Harvard, among them the attacks targeting her identity as a Black woman. This does not change the fact, however, that her presidency — one that promised transformative change for Harvard — was an abject failure.

I fail to see any reason to paste an expiration date on a Garber presidency just as it begins. He has proven himself to be exactly what Harvard needs: stability, not reinvention. Garber should be allowed to lead Harvard for as long as he is able to do so effectively, whether that be three years or ten.

In other words, Harvard should refrain from forcing change, for a change.

Henry P. Moss IV ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a History concentrator in Eliot House.