Ten Stories That Shaped the 2010s

The early 2010s at Harvard College saw an interrelated string of events unfold that included one of the College’s largest cheating scandals in recent history, two surreptitious email probes conducted by administrators, a dean’s resignation, and the creation of Harvard’s first-ever Honor Code.

At the root of the years-long series of twists and turns, though, was one Government course taught in spring 2012.

The scandal began in secret, as the Administrative Board conducted a months-long investigation into nearly half of the 279 students enrolled in the spring 2012 edition of GOV 1310: “Introduction to Congress” for allegedly plagiarizing answers or inappropriately collaborating on the class’s final take-home exam. The course’s professor, Matthew B. Platt, initially brought the case to the Ad Board in May 2012 after he noticed unusual similarities in 10 to 20 exams.

In an unusual move, the University later made the investigation public, hoping to use it as a “teaching opportunity.”

The Ad Board found roughly 125 of the final exams submitted for the course suspicious during a review over the summer. During the fall 2012 semester, the Ad Board investigated the individual students who submitted those exams, delivering verdicts by December.

Then-Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Michael D. Smith reported in February 2013 that more than half of the implicated students were eventually forced to withdraw from the College temporarily. Of the remaining students investigated, half received probation, while the rest received no punishment.

Those verdicts only marked the first act of the story, though.

In March 2013, news broke that administrators had probed the administrative email accounts of 16 resident deans in September 2012 in response to several leaks of confidential information connected to the Ad Board’s then-active investigation.

FAS policy allows administrators to access faculty email accounts in “extraordinary circumstances” with the approval of the FAS Dean and the Office of the General Counsel and notification of the faculty member. Administrators can access electronic files of non-faculty “at any time” and “for any business purpose” without requesting permission, per staff policy.

However, Dean of the College Evelynn M. Hammonds revealed at an April 2013 faculty meeting that she had also authorized a second round of secret email searches of a single resident dean identified as having leaked confidential information. The revelation contradicted her previous statements and prompted outrage from assembled faculty.

While the first search only probed administrative accounts, the second — which also sifted through the resident dean’s faculty account — directly violated the FAS faculty email privacy policy because Hammonds failed to obtain the FAS Dean’s authorization and notify the resident dean about the search. Smith said he was not made aware of the second September 2012 search until March 2013.

After weeks of speculation that the move would portend the end of Hammonds’s tenure in University Hall, she announced her decision to step down. Although the move came a month after her admission, Hammonds said the email controversy was “not a motivating factor.”

In July 2013, an independent report found that an OGC attorney had forwarded Smith an email in September 2012 detailing plans for the second round of email searches. Smith said he opened but did not closely read the email, maintaining his unawareness of the search until six months after its conclusion.

The report also concluded that administrators acted in “good faith” when they conducted the searches and confirmed none were aware of the FAS policy regarding notification and authorization procedures for accessing faculty records.

Amid the ongoing cheating scandal and email controversy, conversations about the potential inception of the College’s first honor code also came to a head.

The Academic Integrity Committee’s honor code proposal — approved in May 2014 — called for the creation of a student-faculty judicial body, distinct from the Ad Board, to hear cases of academic dishonesty and proposed requiring that students sign a “declaration of integrity” on major assignments and exams.

In fall 2015, two years after Harvard adjudicated the Gov 1310 case, the College implemented its newest academic integrity policy.

—Staff writer Amanda Y. Su can be reached at amanda.su@thecrimson.com. Follow her on Twitter @amandaysu.

Harvard has been locked in a legal battle for more than five years over allegations that its admissions policies discriminate against Asian Americans, capturing national attention and bringing to light details of the College’s notoriously secretive admissions process.

That fight officially began in Nov. 2014, when anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions sued the University, alleging that the College intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants by artificially capping the number admitted to each class.

The lawsuit, which first went to trial in Boston on Oct. 15, 2018, was decided in Harvard’s favor roughly a year later, when federal judge Allison D. Burroughs upheld the legality of Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies.

“Ensuring diversity at Harvard relies, in part, on race conscious admissions. Harvard’s admission program passes constitutional muster,” Burroughs wrote in her decision.

The trial and Burroughs’s decision came after a discovery period that saw the submission of thousands of pages of data and evidence, including internal admissions office communications, administrators’ depositions, expert statistical analyses, and even a few students’ marked-up applications.

The documents included 2013 reports from the University’s Office for Institutional Research which found that Asian American applicants consistently receive lower personal ratings — numerical scores based on abstract qualities like “humor” and “grit” — from admissions officers. Evidence in the case also suggested that Harvard gives special consideration to relatives of top donors and admits recruited athletes at particularly high rates.

The three-week-long trial in the case also saw courtroom appearances from Harvard students and top officials alike, including former University President Drew G. Faust, who took the stand as the nation watched the case unfold.

Three days after Burroughs released her decision on Oct. 1, SFFA filed a notice of appeal, marking what may be only the first step in a protracted appeals process. Still, University President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote that he remains confident an appeals court will uphold Burroughs’s decision.

“Everyone admitted to Harvard College has something unique to offer our community, and today we reaffirm the importance of diversity — and everything it represents to the world,” he wrote in an email to Harvard affiliates on Oct. 1.

Experts say the high-profile case will likely continue for several more years, and could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Those following the case closely also note that the final outcome could foreshadow the fate of affirmative action at colleges and universities across the nation.

—Staff writer Meera S. Nair can be reached at meera.nair@thecrimson.com.

In late 2017, women launched a movement using the hashtag #MeToo, prompting a national reckoning over sexual harassment and assault. Harvard saw a 20 percent increase in sexual harassment complaints after the movement began — including some against prominent faculty members.

Beginning in February 2018, nearly 20 women accused Government professor Jorge I. Dominguez of sexual harassment. Dominguez retired that May, becoming a professor emeritus.

In May 2019 — after a year-long investigation into Title IX complaints against Dominguez — Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Claudine Gay stripped him of his emeritus status and barred him from campus.

Earlier that month, a Government department committee found that “prolonged institutional failure” facilitated Dominguez’s abuse, echoing calls from students and faculty for an external audit of those failings. In May 2019, University President Lawrence S. Bacow agreed to the review, which began this fall.

In May 2018, The Crimson reported that star economics professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. — the youngest African-American to receive tenure at Harvard — was under investigation for verbal sexual harassment towards employees at his lab. In July 2019, Gay placed Fryer on a two-year administrative leave for violating University sexual harassment policies and permanently closed the lab.

Harvard Medical School professor Harvey J. Makadon resigned in January 2018 after being accused of sexual misconduct by multiple men, including one who claims Makadon made unwanted advances toward him in 1990 while he was a student at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh did not return to teach at the Law School after student outcry surrounding allegations of harassment that surfaced during his confirmation hearings in late 2018.

In early 2019, former Winthrop House Faculty Dean and Law School professor Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. faced criticism from undergraduates after deciding to defend Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein against sexual abuse charges.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan M. Dershowitz was accused in 2014 and 2018 court filings of having sexual encounters with women allegedly trafficked by sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, whom Dershowitz represented. Dershowitz has denied the allegations repeatedly. Epstein — who died by suicide in August 2019 — held strong ties to the University himself, in the form of multi-million dollar donations and relationships with faculty and administrators.

Throughout the decade, the University implemented sweeping changes to sexual misconduct policies as two undergraduates alleged that Harvard’s procedures violated Title IX, prompting a federal investigation. Nearly all cases are now handled by a central investigative office, though Harvard’s individual schools are responsible for punishing violators. Harvard also lowered the necessary burden of proof, prompting Law School professors to argue the new policy unfairly disfavors accused parties.

In 2017, the Title IX office split administrators who investigate sexual assault complaints from those who provide Title IX training and resources. Additionally, the University implemented mandatory training for students, faculty, and staff.

Despite the changes, a 2019 survey showed rates of sexual misconduct have remained stagnant since 2015. In negotiations for its first contract, Harvard’s graduate student union has made instituting independent procedures for addressing sexual harassment a key priority — one of the factors that prompted its ongoing, indefinite strike.

—Staff writer James S. Bikales can be reached at james.bikales@thecrimson.com. Follow him on Twitter @jamepdx.

Harvard’s development in Boston's Allston neighborhood has brought administrators, professors, and students face-to-face with a myriad of challenges this decade, from the logistics of moving classes across the river to pushback from Allston residents.

In February 2013, University Provost Alan M. Garber ’76 announced the relocation of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences to North Allston in as few as five years.

The construction of the new SEAS complex has been met with challenges, including growing concerns about student schedules, transportation, and accommodating the growing number of students and faculty. Some SEAS professors have raised concerns that moving SEAS would jeopardize the interdisciplinary goals of the school. About a year in advance of the opening of the new SEAS complex, students still reported mixed feelings about the move.

Harvard has also moved forward with the construction of the Enterprise Research Campus, a facility intended to bridge the gap between Harvard-affiliated research and outside research companies. The Boston Planning and Development Agency approved a master plan for the initial 14 acres of the Enterprise Research Campus in March 2018. In November 2018, Harvard established the Harvard Allston Land Company to oversee the project.

In Nov. 2017, Harvard officials revealed plans to create a collaborative, mixed-use space for artists called the ArtLab, which opened in September 2019. Changes are also on the horizon for the American Repertory Theater, with plans to move from the Loeb Drama Center to a new home in Allston following a $100 million donation.

The Harvard-Allston Task Force, a neighborhood advisory body for Allston-related issues, has remained involved with the new construction. Residents have not shied away from raising concerns about new housing and retail developments, such as Barry’s Corner, and public access to Harvard buildings.

Besides expanding the sciences and humanities into Allston, Harvard has also invested in transportation, including straightening a portion of the Massachusetts Turnpike in conjunction with the construction of West Station, a new commuter rail stop.

Initial meetings about the turnpike project began around 2014. Since then, Harvard’s financial commitment to the project has increased significantly to around $50 million. Officials at the Massachusetts Department of Transportation released final plans for the reconstruction in early 2019, and the project is likely to begin in 2020.

—Staff writer Brie K. Buchanan can be reached at brie.buchanan@thecrimson.com.