Calling this “an age of dissent,” legal and constitutional historian Marco Basile urged aspiring lawyers to learn to deal with the complexities of disagreement in the practice of law and in life.

“Both as lawyers and as persons of faith, not just blind followers, we will inevitably wrestle with questions of whether to disagree and how to do so productively,” said Basile, assistant professor at Boston College Law School, during a talk sponsored by the Catholic Law Students Association at Harvard Law School.

Dissent is inherent to our legal system, but also to faith, said Basile ’08, J.D. ’15, Ph.D. ’16. While law is about disputes and disagreements, faith becomes richer by probing and questioning rather than blindly accepting institutional precepts, he said.

Basile served as a clerk for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court and Judges David Barron and Paul Watford on the federal courts of appeals. He urged Basile’s students to look for lessons in both law and religion on how and when to dissent.

“There is a lot we can actually learn from judicial dissent about how to navigate that challenge,” said Basile.

It is done for different reasons and can take various forms, he said. For instance, Justices William Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall dissented in every death penalty case that came before them.

“Normally judges don’t do that,” said Basile, “but in death penalty cases, Brennan and Marshall dissented over and over again. It was a matter of integrity.”

Judges can also manifest their disagreement in hopes of influencing the majority opinion or persuading other institutions of a different view.

An example of that is Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg’s 2007 dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, he said. In that case, the majority found Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposed a strict 180-day limit for bringing workplace discrimination lawsuits. Ginsburg argued Congress should amend the law as its deadline was too restrictive and unfair.

Two years later, Congress did so, passing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

“Of all her dissents, the one Justice Ginsburg was most proud of is Ledbetter,” said Basile. “She wrote it for Congress. She asked Congress to fix it, and, in that instance, Congress did it like almost immediately.”

When judges dissent, they can also do it in an attempt to correct errors out of concern for the “verdict of history.”

“Sometimes, judges are trying to correct something by writing to the future, to a future generation, or in a very particular sense, for the court of history,” said Basile.

Ultimately, the big question when it comes to dissent is knowing when to do it, said Basile.

Lawyers should be mindful of the costs and consequences in time and resources of taking opposition — and the possibility of being incorrect.

“You might be wrong, and the fact that most of your colleagues disagree with you is often an indication that you might be wrong,” said Basile. “You have to balance powerful reasons for disagreement with some quite serious costs to dissenting.”

A practicing Catholic, Basile said he relies on his faith to decide when to let something slide and when to speak up.

He said he finds inspiration in the story of Nicodemus, a biblical figure who appears in the Gospel of John, as an example of someone who wrestled with doubts and found resolution by confronting them directly without fear or favor.

“We live in an age of dissent and disagreement, and it’s worth asking these big questions,” said Basile. “When it comes to the deeper question of dissent: ‘How do I know what to do?’ I’m inviting you to think of your faith, from whatever tradition, as a really important resource … It can be valuable practice for developing your conscience or your inner life … and enabling you to know when and how to speak up or stay silent or walk out, whether you confront this problem in a law office or a church or a nation.”

Not all staffers at Harvard get the chance to flex their creative talents as part of their everyday work. So, Harvard launched the annual Staff Art Show in 2020 to give employees a forum for artistic expression. The seventh iteration of the multimedia exhibit displays the work of 215 artists in three locations across campus — Longwood’s Countway Library (through June 5), Cambridge’s Smith Campus Center (through May 4), and Allston’s Harvard Ed Portal Crossings Gallery (April 16-May 14). Here we profile three artists in just a small sample of the talent on display this year.

Kaye draws inspiration for her art from her day job at the Herbaria. Harvard’s collection of pressed, dried plant specimens, she stresses, is not only a great resource for research but also for the “historic, beautiful specimens that really cross the boundary between art and science.”

Kaye is currently digitizing the Herbaria’s extensive records of pressed plants, which means she is essentially photographing centuries’ worth of samples to make them accessible to researchers and the public globally.

“Forest Floor” incorporates the skills she’s learned along the way, using cyanotypes — photographic blueprints — of items found during a sojourn in Vermont, such as leaves, flowers, and the wing of a luna moth. To continue the connection with nature, she made subtly colored dyes using such plant material as sumac flowers and onion skins and added embroidery knots to lift the flowers of a yarrow plant off the fabric surface. “I wanted to figure out ways to make it a little more 3D, and I thought using the botanically dyed embroidery thread was an interesting way to do it.”

This is the second Harvard Staff Art Show for Kaye, whose textile art is on view at the Smith Center’s 10th-floor Riverview Commons.

The graduate of New York’s School of Visual Arts said her Harvard job stems — so to speak — from her vocation: “I started using plants in my artwork, and then after graduating I decided I wanted to learn more about plants.”

Looking to “find ways to have an artistic practice that didn’t create a lot of waste,” Kaye settled on using plants and other found material. That has also prompted her in her work toward a master’s degree in sustainability through the Harvard Extension School.

Along the way, Kaye is also planning more textile art inspired by her job, in particular one piece that maps out plant species in Vermont.

“I want to continue to integrate art and science, but this time, bring my own research into it,” she said. “I want viewers to feel connected to nature and reflect on the importance of biodiversity. I also hope this piece highlights the value of using natural and sustainable materials.”

Srinivasan was attracted to art and medicine for similar reasons. In some ways, said the artist, printmaking may have influenced her to choose surgery as a medical specialty.

Linocuts like “Panacea,” as well as the woodblock prints she also creates, involve carving into linoleum to make a plate that is then inked to produce a print.

“Within medicine, I wanted that left-brain, right-brain analytical, problem-solving component that comes with any medical specialty,” said Srinivasan, who studied studio art as an undergraduate and came to medicine through the FlexMed program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, which encourages creative students to bring their talent to medicine. “But I also really wanted that physical component as well.”

Citing the “state of flow that you find when you’re challenged both intellectually and physically,” Srinivasan explained, “I really love working with my hands, and I wanted something very tactile in medicine. Surgery was exactly that for me.”

The second of Srinivasan’s prints to be shown in a Harvard staff art show, “Panacea” makes visual some of the issues she sees in public health today, particularly what she calls the proliferation of “anti-intellectual and anti-evidenced-based practices.” With a throng of hungry mouths reaching for a spoon of what is labeled apple cider vinegar, she challenges the idea that social media knows better than the medical profession how to treat disease while sympathizing with the desperation of people who have been led to distrust established science.

It’s a topic that came home to her while watching “Apple Cider Vinegar,” a Netflix series about a so-called “wellness influencer” who claimed near-miraculous powers for the kitchen staple. “The idea that apple cider vinegar or any other sort of dietary or wellness activity could cure cancer without the help of evidence-based medical treatment was really infuriating to me,” she said.

Srinivasan, whose print is on view in the Longwood show, is currently working with the Visual Arts in Healthcare Program at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and pursuing an M.F.A. at Rhode Island School of Design. For this surgeon/printmaker, art and medicine “really do work hand in hand,” she said. “There really isn’t one without the other.

“Working on a wood block or working on a linoleum plate is akin physically to surgical dissection and the operating room,” she said. “But I also think learning to connect with people emotionally with my artwork has allowed me to be more empathetic and understanding with patients.”

First-time Harvard staff art show participant Sekoll knows how to make things. As director of design and fabrication instruction, he teaches students how to create the machinery for their experiments and oversees one of the SEAS machine shops. But the teacher, who has earned a master’s degree from the Academy of Art University, where he primarily concentrated on sculpture, sees the connection to art, such as his elegant Art Deco-like lamp, as essential.

“I like working with my hands,” said Sekoll, whose double cage lamp will be on view in Allston. “I like working with tools and equipment. I’ve loved working in metal my whole life, whether it was jewelry or it was in a machine shop.”

That led him to his current job: “When I was getting my master’s degree, I got really into industrial design,” he said, citing the beauty and precision of the work.

Along the way, he discovered a passion for teaching. “I love passing on the skill sets to the next generation,” he said. “When you see their eyes brighten up and they go, ‘Oh, wow, I just made this,’ and you see how excited they get, I get that same thrill.”

For Sekoll, who also creates metal vessels that require precision measurements to seal correctly, the thrill of learning never ends. “Sometimes I just like to get a piece of metal and start playing around with it,” he said.

These days, he is focusing on how best to use tools such as the machine shop’s 3D printers, a learning process that allows him to explore for both his job and his art: “I’d like to spend a little bit more time developing my own skill sets beyond where I am now.” As he does so, he noted, “You’re learning about the machine, you’re learning new features of the machine, but you’re also making something at the same time.”

For Sekoll, the distinction between what he does during office hours and what he does on his own time is basically nonexistent. His three-piece lamp, for example, is functional. That doesn’t diminish its artistic value.

“I started with fine artwork and then got into more functional work,” he said. “For me, art doesn’t have to sit on a pedestal. Art doesn’t have to be a painting on a wall.”

Data centers, which house computer systems that help train AI models, are blanketing the country, a boom fueled by surging interest in AI and state tax breaks.

More than 4,000 are already in operation, mostly in Virginia, Texas, and California, and 3,000 more are being planned or under construction.

Data center developers and tech giants argue the projects benefit communities by creating new jobs and boosting local economic development through increased property tax revenue and future business opportunities. They also note that infrastructure must grow if the nation wants to remain a global AI power.

But public opposition is mounting over the large water and electricity demands and other strains that data centers, often the size of warehouses, place on communities, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center.

In this interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Ben Green, assistant professor in the University of Michigan School of Information and Public Policy and a faculty associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, discusses the impact of data centers on communities, the factors behind their rapid expansion, and the potential for regulation.

Residents are increasingly pushing back against plans to build data centers in or near their communities. Are their concerns legitimate or exaggerated?

The public broadly is quite negative about data centers. Overall, their concerns are very legitimate.

The public is concerned about rising electricity rates caused by data centers. They are concerned about the enormous water use that data centers require. They’re concerned about public handouts in the form of tax breaks that are going to data center developers, and they’re also aware that data centers don’t bring meaningful economic development, especially in the form of jobs.

I think the public is quite right to be concerned about data centers. My research and other research have shown that these are a bad deal for communities on the local level.

It’s been impressive just how well communities have organized around this, how educated they have gotten about the topic, and how many of these projects they have been able to stop. It’s a sort of David and Goliath fight; local communities are pushing back against some of the wealthiest companies in the world.

Certainly not every effort is successful. Sometimes, the wealth and power of these companies win out. But many data center projects have been blocked by local resistance, and many municipalities have passed moratoria that pause data center development.

How much water and electricity do data centers require on average?

The standard definition of a hyperscale data center is that it is more than 10,000 square feet with more than 5,000 servers. But even that is way below the current standard of the data centers that are being built today.

Just a few miles from where I live in Ann Arbor there is a big project, part of OpenAI’s Stargate Project in Saline Township, Michigan, where the plan is for it to be over 2 million square feet and use 1.4 gigawatts of energy. That is equivalent to the energy use of a million households.

What is important here is not just the scale of an individual data center, but also the number of data centers that are being developed at rapid pace across the country, which is fueling a massive expansion in energy and water demand.

Estimates suggest that within a couple of years, the electricity needed for data centers is going to be around 10 to 15 percent of total nationwide electricity demand. This means that the data center boom is putting severe strain on efforts to move the country toward renewable energy sources, often by prolonging the use of fossil fuel plants that had been slated for closure.

Data center developers claim they bring jobs to local communities. What’s your take on that?

It’s a significant false promise of these data centers. Developers say this because they know that it is attractive to policymakers; they come asking the state to give them benefits in the form of tax breaks, reduced regulations, or special zoning permissions in exchange for job creation.

That also allows data center developers to play into this idea of spreading the aura of the tech economy and Silicon Valley across the country by saying, “We can bring a taste of Silicon Valley to Michigan or Ohio or Colorado.”

In practice, this is not what happens. The construction of data centers requires work because these are large construction projects, but that lasts a year or two; sometimes that labor is local and unionized, and sometimes that labor is trade professionals who come in from other states.

Once the data center is up and running, it requires very few people, often just 20 to 50 staff members, because it’s not an office for software developers, product managers, or marketing experts. It is a warehouse of servers.

Do tax revenues and other community benefits outweigh the downsides of data center expansion?

Unfortunately, there’s just very little economic development that plays out on the local level.

There is some tax revenue, but even that is reduced because of tax break policies. Over the last year, Virginia and Georgia have given up more than a billion dollars’ worth of revenue as a result of tax breaks. That’s money that is being handed back to the industry rather than going into public funds that could pay for infrastructure, schools, or healthcare.

Also, there are not beneficial ripple effects like you might see with other industries. Living within a stone’s throw of a data center does not mean that you are getting better or faster or cheaper access to these technologies.

Communities in both blue and red states have pushed back against data centers. Why is this an issue that unites communities regardless of their political leanings?

Data centers are becoming an important issue in local, state, and potentially federal elections because it is an important subject for voters. They can really feel how data centers affect their lives in ways that are tangible and concrete.

And it’s causing some interesting realignments and potential for bipartisan coalitions because it’s not a simple left or right issue. Liberals and people on the left are concerned for environmental reasons and distrust in AI companies, but many conservatives are upset about data centers too.

This introduces a sort of wild-card effect into future elections where being critical of data centers is a big winning issue for candidates. That played out in November in some Virginia and Georgia elections and is a hot topic for candidates campaigning right now, such as in the Michigan Senate primaries.

What policy recommendations are needed to address the expansion of data centers?

Regulation is definitely necessary. One important action is to repeal tax breaks for data center developers because they are incentivizing further data center development and are making it a further bad deal for communities.

A large number of projects are happening because states have passed tax breaks to incentivize data center development. About 35 states now have these tax breaks in place as part of their recruitment pitch.

There are many other considerations.

First, transparency needs to be a bare minimum requirement. There’s an amazing amount of obscurity in data center development right now. Contracts are secretive, and when they are made public, there are huge redactions, and policymakers are signing nondisclosure agreements. There should be early and consistent transparency about what’s being proposed and what the terms of these deals are.

There should be rate protections for consumers with clear contract provisions such that the cost of upgrading the utility infrastructure to service a hyperscale data center doesn’t get passed on to consumers like you and me, which has been happening consistently across the country.

If you live near data centers, your electricity bills are going up, often by a factor of two or more. There should also be a stronger voice for communities in determining whether to welcome data centers, and under what conditions.

One final piece is the need to think about broader planning on how much total water and electricity demand from data centers a state or a region or utility jurisdiction can handle. It’s one thing to say that a state can handle one hyperscale data center, but quite another for that state to be welcoming dozens of such facilities.

We have to make sure that we’re not sacrificing climate goals just for the sake of building more data centers or building data centers faster. We should not be allowing the desire among the tech industry for rapid data center development to push renewable energy goals to the wayside.

Can forgiving someone today leave you with an improved sense of well-being a year from now? A new study of residents of 22 countries says yes.

The caveat, though, is that the size of the impact varies by nation, as does its nature.

Researchers with the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science enrolled more than 200,000 participants to complete annual surveys about forgiveness practices and 56 measures of well-being one year later.

They found a connection between regular acts of forgiveness and a rise in the sense of psychological, more than physical, well-being and pro-social and character changes.

“We did find evidence of psychological effects, like happiness, and mental-health-related things like depression,” said Richard Cowden, an IQSS research scientist and lead author of the study. “But we also found, in some cases, stronger associations for character and pro-social behavior outcomes like gratitude and an orientation to promote good. I thought that was interesting: Forgiveness is a pathway to building character and other aspects of one’s volitional life.”

The work was published in January in the journal npj | Mental Health Research and builds on results from the program’s initial survey, released in 2024, which examined the distribution of forgiveness in those nations, which represent between 50 percent and 60 percent of the global population.

The first survey established baseline values for the survey nations and included questions about childhood to illuminate predictors of forgiveness. The second wave, conducted a year later, allows researchers to examine potential effects over time, Cowden said.

The survey was designed to evaluate levels of forgiveness as a practice and personal characteristic rather than a single discrete act, asking, “How often have you forgiven those who have hurt you?”

“I would characterize this as a measure of dispositional forgivingness, which is the tendency to forgive others across time and situations, the habitual practice of forgiveness,” Cowden said. “It’s capturing more of a disposition than a state-like quality.”

Data from the third yearly survey have already come in and await analysis. In addition, researchers are gathering data for the fourth wave, Cowden said. Five annual surveys are planned.

Cowden said the results so far are multilayered and complex.

High levels of forgiveness appear to be a national or cultural attribute of some nations, like South Africa. Other countries, like Japan and Turkey, displayed lower levels.

While the research generally indicated an association between higher forgiveness and greater well-being a year later, the strength of the association varied country to country and in some cases was counterintuitive, requiring a closer look at local circumstances.

For example, South Africa, Cowden said, had high national forgiveness but somewhat weaker associations with well-being about a year later. With high rates of poverty and crime, that could be a case of local circumstances overriding a broader trend.

Similarly, nations with high rates of forgiveness may also have cultures that encourage the behavior, so its benefits potentially could be tamped down because it is widely expected.

“You find more consistent evidence of associations in some countries across the outcomes than others,” Cowden said. “Part of the beauty of the study is that it is trying to consider culture and context.”

Cowden said the overall association, drawn from the results of different nations for 56 well-being variables, was not strong but not trivial either, particularly when considering its impacts at a population level.

The study seeks a deeper understanding of something that cultures and religious traditions have valued as a moral virtue for thousands of years, Cowden said.

Though forgiveness is commonly practiced, we don’t fully understand either its personal impacts or its global contours, he said.

“We’re social beings, and we don’t exist well without social relationships, and if relationships are part of what it means to be human, we’re inevitably going to experience hurts along the way because nobody is perfect.”

Cowden described forgiveness as a “muscle we can build” through practice, and that would be relatively simple to deploy as an intervention under appropriate conditions.

He cited a study published in 2024 that tested the effectiveness of a self-directed forgiveness workbook, based on the widely studied REACH forgiveness model. The three-hour resource was given to people in South Africa, Hong Kong, Colombia, Indonesia, and Ukraine. Respondents reported improved forgiveness, anxiety, depression, and overall well-being.

“If everybody who had unresolved hurts were to experience more forgiveness, the population-level benefits to health and well-being could be quite substantial,” Cowden said.

At a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on April 7, 2026, the following tribute to the life and service of the late William Paul was spread upon the permanent records of the Faculty.

Born: March 31, 1926
Died: May 11, 2020

William Paul, Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics and Professor of Physics, Emeritus, spent almost his entire career at Harvard, where he was one of the pioneers of experimental solid state physics, with many contributions in the areas of high pressure and semiconductor physics.

Paul was born on March 31, 1926, in Deskford, Scotland. He attended the University of Aberdeen, where he obtained an M.A. in Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in 1946 and a Ph.D. in 1951. The next year, he came to Harvard on a Carnegie Fellowship, attracted by the high-pressure laboratory of Nobelist P. W. Bridgman, where he wanted to test his ideas regarding the effect of volume changes on the electronic structure and optical properties of crystals. His success led to steady appointments as Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor of Solid State Physics in what was then the Division of Engineering and Applied Physics (DEAP). In 1963, he was appointed Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, this at a time when promotions to tenure within the ranks were rare. Between 1991 and his retirement in 2000, he was Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics, with a joint appointment as Professor of Physics.

Paul was a resourceful experimentalist, who brought key innovations to the high pressure field. He developed, for example, strong, flexible steel tubing to bring pressurized fluid into a cell, which made it possible to place the cell in a confined space, such as a low-temperature dewar for measurements. His 1963 book, “Solids Under Pressure,” is widely known in the field. The synthesis of his work on the pressure dependence of the energy gap between electronic states in semiconductors became known as “Paul’s Law,” which states that, for different semiconductors, that dependence is the same at the same points in the Brillouin zone.

In the early 1970s, Paul’s research interest turned to the amorphous semiconductors silicon and germanium, which, at the time, showed promise as inexpensive photovoltaic materials because they could be deposited as thin films from the vapor. Initially, there were concerns that these materials could not be doped because the aliovalent dopant atoms were thought to occur in their natural, non-tetrahedral coordination in the random silicon network. Furthermore, it was feared that the dangling bonds in the network would create an unacceptably high density of states in the energy gap. Paul was one of the pioneers who showed how these problems could be overcome: by depositing the silicon in the presence of hydrogen, the dangling bonds could be tied up, and, by supplying sufficient dopants, a usable fraction could be incorporated with the desired tetrahedral coordination.

When solid state physics emerged as a field in the post-war years, the lack of enthusiasm in many physics departments at that time for this new discipline led to the establishment of more welcoming “applied physics” departments at several major U.S. universities, often as part of their engineering schools. At Harvard, its home was the DEAP, led by Dean Harvey Brooks, a prominent theoretician in the field, who brought in Paul as one of the founding experimentalists. Paul advised more than 40 Ph.D. students and helped establish a strong graduate course curriculum in solid state physics. For several years, he directed the Materials Research Laboratory, which organized multidisciplinary research in materials and provided central research equipment, such as electron microscopes.

Paul stood out as a very articulate colleague who was not shy to voice his opinions and who was well respected for his insistence on precision, due process, and fairness. He could be counted on to speak up at the meetings of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences — and to bring solid figures to support his remarks. He spoke on over 30 topics at these meetings, ranging from student discipline to faculty retirement.

Paul, his wife Barbara (Babs), and their children, David and Fiona, lived in Lexington for many years, where Babs, or “Madame Paul,” was a beloved French teacher in the public schools. In retirement, Paul revived his interest in the theater, staging and directing plays at his retirement community in Bedford.

Paul died on May 11, 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the age of 94.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael J. Aziz
Eric Mazur
Peter S. Pershan
Frans Spaepen, Chair

Robert Wood is the Harry Lewis and Marlyn McGrath Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. His courses include “How Music Works: Engineering the Acoustical World.”

From a purely mechanistic perspective, a vinyl record has information encoded in the meanders of each groove in the record. The needle physically interacts with those grooves, and the resulting needle motion is converted to a proportional electrical signal. It is therefore possible to generate a signal path — from the mechanical grooves to an electrical signal that is then amplified and used to drive a speaker that is entirely analog.

When we convert an analog signal to a digital representation, we take a continuous signal and chop it up into small “slices” that are compatible with storage in a CD, computer, etc. When we play this now-digital audio file back, we reconstruct the original signal, but since we are starting from a digital version the signal is not as smooth as the original; there are subtle discontinuities that could add unwanted artifacts into the audio. If these are prominent enough, and if there is insufficient correction (i.e., smoothing), these jumps could sound choppy and could add subtle but harsh high-frequency noise.

That is the primary argument supporting the audiophile’s claim that vinyl is better. And there is certainly truth to that. But that “purity” is debatable for several reasons.

First, modern digital audio systems are extremely good at reproducing audio signals that are imperceptible from their analog counterparts to all but the sharpest ears. As I describe in my class, even CD-quality audio nearly covers the dynamic range and bandwidth of human hearing. And there are higher-fidelity audio formats — e.g., “super-audio CDs” — that can, theoretically, exceed our human ability to tell analog from digital.

Also, with digital music I can create arbitrary playlists and even mashups of multiple songs. There is nearly infinite freedom with digital music, including suggestion systems that help expand our musical palette and discover new artists and genres. Vinyl records are far less portable and flexible. Cassettes were a successful attempt to achieve portability and some flexibility but could not match the audio quality of vinyl or CDs. 

All of this is, of course, highly subjective. The convenience of digital music is hard to beat, but there is something to be said for the warmth and feel and even the pops and cracks from dirt and debris on the surface of a record. And there are other, more subtle benefits to listening to music on vinyl. The most important, to me, is the fact that once I put on a record, I am locked into that record. That is, it is far less convenient to skip tracks than it is with CDs or other digital formats, so I am forced to listen to the album as an album instead of a collection of songs I can shuffle. As a fan of album-oriented music, this is very important to me and arguably something that has diminished in the digital music age.

— As told to Anna Lamb, Harvard Staff Writer

When you’re an expert on the gut, you’re used to conversations others might shy away from. So a book on pooping and what can go wrong in the process is on brand for Trisha Pasricha, a second-generation gastroenterologist whose childhood was marked by matter-of-fact directness.

In her new book, “You’ve Been Pooping All Wrong: How to Make Your Bowel Movements a Joy,” the Harvard Medical School assistant professor of medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center shares her sometimes humorous perspective on normal and abnormal bathroom habits. In this edited conversation, Pasricha — who also is the director of research for the Institute for Gut-Brain Research at BIDMC and writes The Washington Post’s “Ask a Doctor” column — discussed emerging knowledge that may illuminate poorly understood conditions like irritable bowel syndrome, the damage a doctor’s doubt can do to patients, and her optimism about her fast-changing field.

In addition to your clinical and research work, you author The Washington Post’s “Ask a Doctor” column. Did that help in writing this book?

Yes, every time we write about gut health it vastly outperforms any other health topic. Even an embarrassing topic like fecal incontinence or farting would do well. That tension is partly why I wrote the book. I think people want good, accurate information and want it without having to make eye contact with their doctor. And we want people to engage early, especially in this age of early onset colorectal cancer.

It seems like you went through some effort to find the right words. Is it poop? Is it a bowel movement? How did you settle on your language?

A dash of humor helps when you’re talking about something that makes people feel ashamed and vulnerable. Medical school trained me to say “bowel movement,” then I started shadowing a gastroenterologist who would go on to become a mentor for me. A patient came in — a younger guy, college-age — and my mentor’s opening line was, “So, tell me about your poop.” The patient had been awkward and nervous, but as soon as my mentor said that, the whole atmosphere changed. I thought, “This is what I should be doing.” This person immediately opened up. He was relieved, and he told the doctor exactly what was going on.

With our reluctance to talk about it, do people really know what normal is?

I don’t think so. When I was starting out on my own, people would tell me about their specific problem, but if you gave them the chance to step back, what they were really curious about was the basics. How many times a day is normal? What colors are normal? How mushy or soft or hard is stool supposed to be? I worry that when people don’t know what normal is, especially what normal for them is, how will they know when something is abnormal?

You point out that there’s wide variety within the “normal” range. What should people look out for?

It’s not just once a day or bust. The range of normal is going between once every three days and three times a day. You can live a full, healthy life anywhere in that range and be fine. What’s important is when there’s a change. If you are somebody who generally goes two or three times a day and now you’re going every other day, even though that is somebody else’s normal pattern, this is a change for you. And colors are important. It’s not always a healthy shade of brown. When you see red, when you see maroon, when you see something black, tarry, sticky, it’s important that you don’t just brush it off. Let your doctor know about it the day it happened.

What are specific conditions these changes might be signaling?

There are lots of different diseases that start in the gut. And there are a lot of gut conditions that may or may not get a diagnosis or a name but are causing you trouble. Most urgent is cancer, but there are other things that cause bleeding and pain, like inflammatory bowel disease. Diverticuli can bleed, hemorrhoids can bleed. There are also things that probably won’t kill you but are difficult to live with. There’s irritable bowel syndrome and other causes of constipation and chronic diarrhea. And there are people who have GI issues, but no diagnosis: Three out of four people can’t poop in public and one in three can’t go to the bathroom on vacation.

Is this a field that’s advancing rapidly?

Definitely. Neurogastroenterology is the most exciting field in GI, though I’m obviously biased. For the longest time we weren’t getting deep enough into the enteric nervous system, into those deep muscle layers of the gastrointestinal tract. So, for about a century, what we were studying was how the brain influenced the gut and what we could observe with our naked eye about its effects on the gut. But now that we’re more and more able to look at those neurons and cellular changes, the whole field is exploding. Every few years there’s a profound breakthrough that upends everything we’ve learned.

Is the new understanding of the gut-brain connection both cutting-edge and misunderstood, even within the medical profession?

That’s exactly right. One of the most common diseases of our specialty, irritable bowel syndrome, is probably one of the most common disorders in all of medicine. It affects 15 percent of the population and yet is poorly understood by the public and by a lot of doctors because these advances are new enough to have happened after many of them got out of medical school. We haven’t done a fantastic job disseminating that knowledge to people outside neuro GI. That was one of the other reasons I wanted to write this book, to make sure people knew everything that I knew about irritable bowel syndrome and how the gut’s communicating with the brain. Because if you don’t know the data, it can sound really fringe.

Some of the stories you tell, particularly about your interactions with your father — you have to trust the patient — seem like important messages for other doctors to hear.

That was a lesson that stuck with me for life. It’s why I decided to end the book on that note. I recognize that we doctors struggle when we don’t know the answers. It’s hard to be a doctor whose patient is suffering. Not only do you not have a treatment for their suffering, but you don’t even understand where the pain is coming from. So I hope the book shifts our thinking when tests come back normal in a patient with IBS. Instead of simply saying, “You need antidepressants,” we change the way we talk to them. We accept that they have abnormalities even though they’re not being captured by the test. That’s when the conversation changes and trust between doctor and patient is transformed. It’s powerful and may point you toward making the right referral or thinking outside the box for medications that you wouldn’t have thought of before.

Is not believing patients a big problem in medicine? It’s cited by IBS sufferers quite a bit and I’ve heard the same thing about long COVID.

I think about this all the time. It’s not just irritable bowel syndrome, although irritable bowel syndrome is a big part of long COVID. It’s other conditions like migraines. All the brain scans and blood tests are negative and yet they’re living with this difficult condition. They feel dismissed. We are taught in medicine to think algorithmically: Here are the set of abnormalities, here’s the pattern, put that puzzle together. When you feel like there are no pieces to put together because there’s no clue you can latch onto, it’s easier to say this is in the patient’s head rather than it’s something that we might not be capturing yet. But we will start to capture those things in tests in the next 15 years and suddenly we’re going to stop telling people “This is all in your head” simply because we’ll see it.

What are the main takeaways for readers of this book?

I hope people walk away from it feeling reassured, feeling like, “You know what? I’m not weird or abnormal. There are a lot of people dealing with exactly the same thing I’m dealing with.” I hope, too, that they feel reassured by the practical tips I give for the day-to-day problems that more people suffer from than we might know because we don’t ask about it, don’t talk about it. I also hope it’s validating to people who have ever felt dismissed or felt that they haven’t been believed, that there’s a whole world of scientists and doctors who are working on this problem.

About 15 percent of people worldwide suffer from migraine, a neurological condition that can cause headache, nausea, visual disturbances, and sensitivity to light and sound. 

After stroke and neonatal brain injuries, migraine is the third-highest nerve-related cause of years lost to disability worldwide. 

The condition is also undertreated and poorly understood, says Michael A. Moskowitz, Harvard Medical School professor of neurology at Mass General. Moskowitz has made multiple discoveries that have revolutionized thinking about the condition, deepened knowledge about why some treatments work, and led to new treatments that are available and prescribed now. 

Moskowitz’s interest in neurology began early. At 14, he worked as a messenger in a hospital for patients with chronic neurological diseases near his family’s home in New York City, and was shocked by what he saw. “I could not comprehend how the brain could so easily betray the body,” he said. 

When he began his career in the early 1970s, migraine was still poorly understood. Images of the brains of patients came back totally normal: On paper, there was nothing wrong. 

“When I first started in the field, many people believed that migraine was a psychological problem,” said Moskowitz. “But it’s not an imagined headache, and it’s not a mild condition.” 

His first step, when he was a postdoctoral fellow and junior faculty in the Harvard-MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology, an inter-institutional collaboration between Harvard University, Harvard Medical School, and MIT, was to dive into the literature. 

“I don’t know how many nickels I dropped in the Xerox machine at the Countway Library, but quite a few,” he said.

He found that no scientist had yet mapped the nerves carrying sensation from the circle of Willis, a network of arteries in the innermost layer of the meninges that supply blood to the brain. The brain itself doesn’t register pain, but the meninges, the brain’s three-layered covering, do. It seemed a promising place to start. 

So using a novel polymer-based technology developed in partnership with MIT chemical engineer Robert Langer, Moskowitz showed that nerve fibers that wrap around the circle of Willis travel back to the brain via the trigeminal nerve, which also carries sensation from the forehead, where headaches are often felt. His lab then found that these nerves contain and release neuropeptides, setting up a cascade that causes meningeal inflammation and other harmful effects. 

It was a stark departure from the previous belief about migraine, which was that the condition was purely caused by the dilation of blood vessels. 

In later research, Moskowitz demonstrated that classical migraine drugs called ergots and triptans acted in a completely different and unexpected way than had been assumed: Rather than constricting blood vessels, the drugs blocked those harmful neuropeptides from being released from nerve fibers in the first place. 

“That changed 100 years of dogma about how the ergots worked,” Moskowitz said. It also led to a new class of drugs that blocked neuropeptide release without vessel constriction In addition, it led to the development of drugs and antibodies that block the action of CGRP, a major neuropeptide in this pathway; those drugs are still in use today. Other neuropeptides discovered through his research are providing promising leads for future migraine therapies, said Moskowitz, who in 2021 received the Brain Prize for his contributions to migraine research. 

Building on the breakthrough, his lab began to look for the trigger that caused the release of peptides in the first place. They identified cortical spreading depression, a slow-moving tsunami of electrical and chemical changes in the brain. As the wave progresses, it can trigger migraine’s varied symptoms. For example, the migraine’s classic visual aura occurs as the chemical and electrical changes move through the brain’s visual cortex. 

Moskowitz’s research is also focused on the study of stroke and its potential neurovascular targets. In 2024, he and his chief collaborator, Matthias Nahrendorf, an HMS professor of radiology at Mass General, were awarded a Javits Award, a prestigious seven-year research grant, from the National Institutes of Health. Along with another collaborator, Charles Lin, an HMS professor of dermatology at Mass General, they are following up on new discoveries showing that the skull bone marrow and its blood-forming inflammatory cells contribute to the health of the meninges. The findings could impact a variety of neurological diseases, including stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and multiple sclerosis. 

“My research has been 98 percent funded by the NIH over the course of my career,” Moskowitz said, expressing gratitude for the federal partnership that allowed bench-to-bedside medicine to flourish. “I can say with great confidence that if it weren’t for the NIH, we definitely wouldn’t have these new migraine drugs that block headaches.” 

In her latest book, “Frog and Other Essays,” Anne Fadiman ’75 writes about topics ranging from a dead pet frog to her attachment to an old printer. The literary essayist, journalist, and editor, who is also a professor and writer in residence at Yale, recently spoke to the Gazette about themes in her new collection, a summer stint at Harvard Magazine that helped her hone her craft, how students can become better writers in a month, and AI’s impact on education and literature. The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Your parents were both writers. Could you talk about your family’s influence on your love for books and words? 

My parents had about 7,000 books between them, but they rarely pressed books on us. They simply told us that we had free range. So, my brother and I were always taking down books that were over our heads and trying them out. My father later wrote about how much he hated children’s books that had short words and talked down to their readers. He said the only way to enlarge a rubber band is to stretch it, and he believed the same goes for children — that they should always be reading things that are a little too hard. As for words, I’ve always loved them. Other families play games with balls; the Fadimans played games with words.

How did Harvard help you become a writer?

Harvard had no creative nonfiction classes when I was there in the early ’70s. I took a couple of fiction classes, and the main thing they taught me was that I shouldn’t be a fiction writer. But I had two mentors at Harvard Magazine (called the Harvard Alumni Bulletin until 1973): editor John Bethell, who is now in his 90s and to whom I’m still very close, and managing editor Kit Reed, who died in 2017. I did an independent study with them. If it hadn’t been for those two, particularly John Bethell, who’s the best editor and best writing teacher I’ve ever had, I doubt my career would have unfolded in the same way.

When I worked at Harvard Magazine the summer after my junior year, John had me write for every department, including sports and obituaries. During the day I’d write what I thought was a work of genius, and then, after hours, John and I would sit together and go over it line by line. And I would realize, “Oh, well, it’s possible that this is not a work of genius.” But it can get better. Today I use that same form of teaching with my own students, sitting with them and going over their work line by line. John’s teaching made me a better writer on the sentence level. That’s something most young journalists never get from their editors.

Early in your career, you wrote reported magazine articles, and now you write mostly essays. What drew you to essays?

Until I was middle-aged, everything that I published was reportorial nonfiction, and everything since then has been essays or memoir, which isn’t to say that I won’t ever return to reportorial nonfiction. I had never published an essay in my life until age 41, when I was stuck in bed during a problem pregnancy and couldn’t do any reporting. I discovered that the essay was a form to which I was well suited — one I love to read, and one I still love to write.

Essays were more or less invented in the 16th century by Michel de Montaigne, who was also the mayor of Bordeaux. He called them “essays,” from the French “essayer” — to try, to attempt. They were about very personal subjects like kidney stones, drunkenness, and fear. Nobody had read anything like them before. In my case, I had never thought I was sufficiently interesting to write about, but I found that the essay form, particularly a subset of the personal essay called the familiar essay, is ideal for me because I love research. The familiar essay is framed by the author’s experience, but it’s also about a topic.

Your latest book includes essays about a dead pet frog, your struggles with Zoom, an old printer, and the periodical The South Polar Times, among others. What do you hope readers take away from these essays?

After I read from “Frog and Other Essays” at a bookstore recently, an audience member asked why I wrote about apparently trivial topics when there were so many difficult things happening in the world. Here is one answer. The South Polar Times was a magazine that circulated among the men on two early Antarctic expeditions led by the British explorer Robert Falcon Scott at the very beginning of the 20th century. These men were facing terrible risks, and Scott decided a periodical published during the months without sunlight might prevent them from getting cabin fever and remind them of the aspects of the world and their lives back home that were funny or beautiful or tender. It was hand-typed by one of the explorers once a month and circulated like a sacred text among men of all different ranks. That’s what kept their spirits going; that’s what they needed when they were facing death. We need beauty, wit, and attention to small things even more when we have to face large, painful things.

I often start an essay in a place as small as possible and then let it open up. My essay about my stubborn refusal to get rid of my obsolete old printer eventually leads into a discussion of growing old and how people my age are worried about becoming obsolete ourselves. I hope readers will take from these essays the notion that large things can come from small things, and that they should never feel their own lives are trivial.

You’ve been teaching nonfiction writing at Yale for 21 years. What advice can you offer to aspiring writers?

Ask yourself, “What am I trying to say?” and make sure that everything in the piece you’re writing answers that question. Then cut out everything that doesn’t.

If you want to become a better writer in a month, I suggest you spend that time not writing but reading the complete works of E.B. White. If you read those works all day every day, that would take you about two weeks, and then you could read them all over again. Simply by osmosis, the beauty and clarity of White’s sentence structure would penetrate your brain. I feel sure you’d be a better writer at the end of the experiment.

Finally, are you concerned that AI might pose a threat to writers?

I think AI is a terrible threat, not only to creativity but to ethics. It turns honest students into cheaters simply because they see everybody else cheating, and because it makes cheating so easy. It’s a well-greased slide. You ask ChatGPT to suggest a synonym for a word or phrase, using it in a perfectly honest way as an online thesaurus. But then it will say, “May I draft a sentence for you? May I draft a paragraph? Why don’t you tell me your main points so that I can draft the whole essay?” And down the slope you go. AI is going to change both education and literature. I think it’s going to be like B.C. and A.D. B.C. is about to end: the period during which all books were actually written by humans.

I can’t say that AI has affected my own writing classes at Yale. Like most of my colleagues, I get to choose my students from a large pool of applicants. They’re the students whose voices interest me, but they’re also the ones who are most motivated to learn how to write better. They don’t want to do less work; they want to do extra work. So far, I haven’t been able to sniff out even one AI-written sentence. The day that starts to happen will be the day I quit my job and the day my heart gets broken.

It’s no longer necessary to know how to code to design a website or an app. Describe in plain English what the program should do, and an AI agent will do its best to enact the vision — a process termed “vibe coding.” The end result may have plenty of limitations, but it will be far more advanced than what someone without fairly significant technical skills could produce.

Among those exploring the new practice is Karen Brennan, Timothy E. Wirth Professor of Practice in Learning Technologies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, who taught a six-week course on vibe coding beginning late last fall. In this edited interview, Brennan details what she tells students and insights she’s gained about what our future with AI may look like.

What is vibe coding, and what was your first experience with it?

Vibe coding is creating software with the assistance of AI — and specifically, creating software where you don’t necessarily understand the code that’s being produced. (“Vibe coding” is a term popularized by computer researcher Andrej Karpathy in February 2025.)

Responsibility for understanding the underlying code differentiates professional software development, which is also increasingly AI-assisted, from vibe coding. As a term, vibe coding can be positive or pejorative, either celebrating the freedom from having to understand code or underscoring the risks of setting aside that responsibility.

My first experience with vibe coding was in December 2024. Through a Harvard Initiative for Learning & Teaching-funded research project, I had been studying how students were using generative AI in self-directed projects, and one of the students introduced me to v0 (an AI-powered tool for building web applications and sites).

When I later needed to build a website for the same research project, I used v0 to build it. I was amazed by how quickly I was able to create the site and by the quality of what was created.

You’ve taught a course on vibe coding, with no prior experience with AI or coding required. What was your hope for the course, and how did it turn out?

My doctoral student Jacob Wolf and I designed a six-week course about vibe coding that we taught in late fall last year, which was supported by a phenomenal teaching team. Our hope for the course was to explore this particular sociotechnological moment, where anyone can (in theory) create software in collaboration with AI.

The central question motivating the course was: How do we think about AI as a creative partner? We had a different theme each week (build something that tells a story, that makes your life easier, that invites play, etc.) and tried different vibe coding tools each week (e.g., Replit, Figma Make, Claude Code).

The course was explicitly not about building professional software; we were focused on experimenting with new creative possibilities.

An important part of the course design for us was pairing hands-on creation with a critical perspective. Each week we read one classic text from computer science (to remind ourselves that people have been thinking about the opportunities and challenges of AI for several decades) and one more contemporary critical piece (to defend against AI hype).

We asked students to put their hands-on experiences and the readings in conversation with each other in a culminating position portfolio. Now that they’ve had all of these experiences, how do they feel about creating with AI? What do they want to say about it?

I loved the experience — both for what our students were able to create and critique and for having the opportunity myself to create together with the students. Ninety-two students participated and based on the course evaluations and our meetings with them, students appreciated both the opportunity to build things for themselves and the critical frameworks we brought to that work.

This was a giant experiment, and as with any first-run course there were many things we were figuring out in real time, especially given ongoing technology changes. But I feel that the positive feedback we received from students affirmed that it isn’t too soon to try teaching this in a university setting at a school of education.

What are some of the promises and limitations of vibe coding?

The core promise for me is democratization of creation. Vibe coding makes the production of software, the output of code, accessible to more people. You can have an idea and realize that idea without having a degree in computer science or hiring a team of developers. And so it is changing the economics of experimentation: to understand a thing, you often have to build a thing, and now you can build that thing very quickly. That rapid iteration and tinkering is one pathway to generating more ideas and unlocking creativity.

Being at a school of education, there’s also a learning dimension that I find exciting. Even though vibe coding can be a way of avoiding CS content knowledge, many of these tools create opportunities for you to inspect and examine the implementation, the code. You can peek under the hood!

And you can also ask the AI to explain what you’ve created together at whatever level of detail you feel most comfortable with, from a more technical explanation to asking it to explain it to you like you’re a first grader.

There are, of course, a number of limitations. Environmental impact and cost were two of many concerns we grappled with. And as a creator, you are limited by your ability to express your ideas in natural language. Students with CS knowledge or design backgrounds can go further because they can more explicitly describe what they’re hoping for.

We saw students get stuck in frustrated loops: prompting AI for something, AI producing something not quite right or something that felt generic, and then students being unable to fully articulate the problem and what to change. Vibe coding privileges people who are strong verbal communicators, which is an important equity consideration.

How does vibe coding differ from conventional software engineering?

Vibe coding is wonderful for quick prototyping and personal projects, which professional software engineers also do.

But I think a major difference concerns responsibility. When I think about my own preparation in computer science, there were very good reasons we were required to take courses on the social impacts and ethics of computing. Vibe coders don’t typically need to concern themselves with the same types of questions that professional software engineering teams are considering, such as reliability, safety, security, and maintainability.

Vibe coding is often optimized for how much wow can I get in the next hour, rather than for the quality of what’s created or for the people who might depend on it.

As someone with a background in computer science, how does your experience with vibe coding differ from someone who has never coded before?

Content knowledge has its advantages! You might have a different sense of what is possible to create. You can more explicitly describe what you’re hoping to create and more easily recognize when something has gone awry and how to fix it. I think there are also habits of mind cultivated through the discipline (i.e., persistence and willingness to iterate) that feel especially helpful when vibe coding.

But more than the differences, what I noticed in the course was how much we had in common, no matter one’s prior experience and expertise. There is something profoundly joyful about having an idea, bringing it into the world, and sharing it with others — and experiencing that surprise and delight together.

How do you see vibe coding evolving moving forward?

I hope that more people have opportunities to experience vibe coding, creatively expressing themselves and opening up new opportunities for learning. I especially hope that we’ll see it more in schools, though there will be challenges due to cost, resistance from lack of familiarity, and understandable concerns about potential impacts on cognition and critical thinking.

Vibe coding doesn’t exist in a vacuum — its uptake in schools (and beyond) will be shaped as much by politics, policy, and people as by the technology itself.

I think the central practices we develop when vibe coding — thinking creatively about what we want to make, composing and iterating on prompts, critically evaluating what is produced — are going to become central life practices. Maybe it’s less “vibe coding” and more “vibe everything.”

If the technologies that surround us will be able to do an almost limitless number of things for us, and we just have to know how to ask, then being able to imagine possibilities, express clearly what we want to see in the world, review what we create, and iterate, will be incredibly helpful capabilities for all of us to develop.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell ’87 and Michael S. Chae ’90 will join the Harvard Corporation as its two newest members, the University announced Tuesday.

Burwell, formerly the president of American University, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and director of the Office of Management and Budget, has served in a variety of leadership and advisory roles across government, philanthropy, and higher education. She is currently president of the Board of Overseers until her term expires in May.

In a message to the Harvard community, President Alan M. Garber and Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker noted Burwell’s dedication as an alumna and her deep knowledge of the University.  

“Sylvia is known for her integrity, thoughtfulness, and data-informed decision-making, as well as her ability to engage constructively with stakeholders across political and ideological lines,” said Garber and Pritzker.

A widely respected leader in global finance and investments, Chae is vice chairman and chief financial officer of Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative asset management firm. He also serves on the board of the Harvard Management Company.

“A deeply devoted alumnus, [Chae] has supported undergraduate financial aid and the work of the economics and government departments, as well as other significant University initiatives,” said Garber and Pritzker.

“An expert in the management of complex financial institutions with deep knowledge of corporate governance, Michael is widely respected for his collegiality, humility, and rigor.”

In accordance with the University’s charter, Burwell and Chae were elected Monday by the Corporation to become Fellows of Harvard College, with the consent of the University’s Board of Overseers.

Both will begin their service on July 1, filling two of three vacancies arising when Kenneth I. Chenault and Karen Gordon Mills conclude their service at the end of June and following the departure of Biddy Martin, who completed her service earlier this year.

Garber and Pritzker shared their appreciation for the three departing members of the Corporation, noting the ways in which their “pragmatic and principled counsel have helped to guide the University during an extraordinarily tumultuous period.”

“We are grateful to them — and to our colleagues past and present — for all of their work to ensure that Harvard continues to thrive,” they said.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Burwell’s career has been marked by a consistent focus on expanding opportunity and strengthening institutions that serve the public good. A native of Hinton, West Virginia, she graduated from Harvard College with a concentration in government and went on to study philosophy, politics, and economics at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar.

As the 15th president of American University, she helped shape a university-wide strategy for teaching, research, and community engagement, led a major fundraising campaign in support of that work, and guided the institution through the disruptions of the pandemic, balancing health and safety while maintaining academic continuity and student support.

As secretary of Health and Human Services from 2014 to 2017, Burwell oversaw a vast portfolio that included major public health agencies and programs affecting hundreds of millions of Americans, from health insurance coverage to medical research and food and drug safety. She had previously served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, where she was responsible for developing the federal budget and helped negotiate a bipartisan budget agreement following the 2013 government shutdown. Colleagues across these roles have praised her command of detail, calm leadership under pressure, and her ability to build trust among diverse stakeholders.

Burwell also held senior posts at two of the world’s largest philanthropic foundations. At the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, she played key roles in both operational leadership and global development efforts aimed at improving health and reducing poverty. She later led the Walmart Foundation, directing philanthropic initiatives focused on strengthening communities, improving economic mobility, and supporting sustainability initiatives.

A member of the Board of Overseers since 2023 and its president since 2025, Burwell also serves on a range of boards and advisory groups in the health, policy, and corporate sectors.

“I am honored to have the opportunity to serve Harvard, an institution that has changed the lives of so many through excellence in its core mission of teaching and research,” said Burwell. “From my upbringing in a small town in West Virginia as a second-generation Greek immigrant to my professional roles, I have personally seen the life-changing impact Harvard offers to people here at home and around the world. Pursuing my educational dreams at Harvard prepared me for life’s opportunities, adventures, and challenges, as it continues to do for so many students today.

“Harvard’s research saves lives and makes vital progress on conditions from diabetes to dementia. I humbly look forward to working with my colleagues to support President Garber, the faculty, and the staff in delivering on that core mission with excellence and with the values of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, academic exploration, and respect and belonging for all members of our community. I hope to be a part of taking that mission and those values into a better future for society that is both challenged and changing.”

Michael S. Chae

During his nearly three decades at Blackstone, Chae has helped steer the firm’s evolution into the world’s largest alternative asset management firm. As vice chairman and chief financial officer, he oversees the firm’s financial strategy and plays a key role in shaping its long-term direction. He is a member of Blackstone’s management and operating committees and many of its investment committees, giving him broad insight into the firm’s activities across businesses and regions.

Earlier in his Blackstone career, Chae held a series of senior positions in the private equity business, including responsibility for international private equity, leadership of Asia Pacific private equity based in Hong Kong, and as a senior partner in the U.S. private equity business. He has led or overseen numerous investments and has worked closely with portfolio company boards and management teams on strategy, performance, and governance — experience that has underscored his focus on building resilient enterprises and sustaining long-term value.

A magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College, where he concentrated in history, he later earned a master’s degree in international relations from Cambridge University and a J.D. from Yale Law School, where he served as managing editor of the Yale Law Journal.

He has remained an active Harvard supporter and adviser. In addition to serving on the board of the Harvard Management Company, he is a member of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean’s Council and the Committee on University Resources, and has supported undergraduate financial aid and academic initiatives in the social sciences.

Chae’s commitment to education and opportunity extends beyond Harvard. He serves on the board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a leading anti-poverty organization in New York City, and has held governance roles at several educational institutions, including chairing the board of the Lawrenceville School. At Yale Law School, he and his wife, Alexa, established the Chae Initiative in Private Sector Leadership. He also serves on the board of the Asia Society and as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“I am honored to serve an institution that means so much to me, at a time when it faces both historic challenges and opportunities,” said Chae. “Harvard’s mission of excellence in learning and research has never been more vital, as is the importance of fostering and protecting a culture of academic freedom and intellectual diversity.

“I look forward to working with the University’s leadership and the Corporation’s members to help Harvard fulfill this critical mission.”

The Harvard Corporation, formally named the President and Fellows of Harvard College, was chartered in 1650 and exercises fiduciary responsibility with regard to the University’s academic, financial, and physical resources, and overall well-being. Chaired by the president, the 13-member Corporation is one of Harvard’s two governing boards. Members of Harvard’s other governing board, the Board of Overseers, are elected by holders of Harvard degrees.

An American born in 2024 can expect to live to 79. That’s up 0.6 years from 2023 and the longest life expectancy in U.S. history. 

But living longer and living well are not the same thing. About 93 percent of the nation’s 58 million adults over 65 live with at least one chronic health condition, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, arthritis, or diabetes. After age 55, about 42 percent of Americans go on to develop dementia. 

Despite that, an increasingly visible cohort of older Americans aren’t just living longer. They’re also extending their healthspans, the years of life free from age-related illness or cognitive decline. In doing so, they’re creating new models for what it means to age well and challenging some of the oldest cultural assumptions about the last third of life. 

For the latest installment of “One Word Answer,” a series focused on connotations, we asked three scholars to dive into “old.” 

A historical view of frailty 

When Maud Jansen was completing clinical rotations, she found herself troubled by the way some physicians spoke about older patients, as though certain outcomes were forgone conclusions before treatment had even begun. 

She recalled a team of doctors discussing an elderly woman with a hip fracture and a stroke. One doctor remarked, “Well, she’ll go to rehab and wither away.” 

“It’s thorny, because in a way we have to accept that people get older and might have bad outcomes,” Jansen said. “But then again, are we sure?” 

Now an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate in Harvard’s Department of the History of Science, Jansen studies frailty — an umbrella term that emerged in the 1980s to describe a set of symptoms, such as hip fractures, incontinence, and delirium, that are common among older adults, and to which older adults are uniquely susceptible because of the cumulative effects of aging. Jansen examines the longer history of medical care for these conditions to understand how assumptions about old age shaped care and medical responsibility for bad outcomes. 

Before the 19th century, the dominant view of aging was one of inexorable decay, she explained. Older patients, considered incurable and therefore unworthy of treatments, might be sent to almshouses. A hip fracture was frequently fatal, less from the injury itself than from what followed: prolonged immobility, infection, or neglect. 

“What I’m finding as I’m researching these conditions of frailty is that the cultural understanding of people as frail can, and did, naturalize bad outcomes as inevitable. In this way, beliefs about frailty foreclosed the possibility of effective intervention or improvements to care.” 

The 20th century brought new frameworks. The Great Depression and the passage of Social Security in the 1930s gave rise to concepts like retirement and the “golden years” — the idea that old age might be a distinct and important phase of life. In 1969, the word “ageism” entered the lexicon to describe discrimination against older adults. A year later, a Philadelphia woman named Maggie Kuhn founded the advocacy group that became known as the Gray Panthers to challenge the idea that it was normal for older adults to simply withdraw from society. 

Today, Jansen is delighted by depictions of seniors living active and engaged lives, like older adult influencers sharing their passions for fashion or fitness, or TV shows like Netflix’s “Grace and Frankie.” 

“It’s a great thing that older adults are more robust into later life. But then the question becomes, what do you do with it? Has society really carved out good roles for them? I think that’s an ongoing question.” 

Luck, lifestyle, and privilege

Jeanne Louise Calment, who died in 1997 at age 122, is the oldest person in history whose age has been verified. Scientists generally accept her age range, 120 to 125, as a hard upper limit — at least for now. 

“The median is getting higher and higher while the maximum does not shift,” said William Mair, professor of molecular metabolism at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Humans could expect to live for 35 years for most of our evolutionary history. It wasn’t until interventions like clean drinking water and antibiotics that we lived long enough to develop chronic age-related health conditions. Now, Mair said, researchers are focused on helping more people get closer to Calment’s age and get there with their health intact. 

“Some people have incredible health — centenarians, or people who are super active into their late 90s. That’s not just luck,” said Mair. “Whether it’s optimism or social engagement or nutrition, we can begin to bring these things together and see how they do it.” 

The biology of exceptional aging is increasingly legible. Researchers can now measure what they call biological age, which is distinct from chronological age, using markers of DNA damage, metabolic function, and cellular health. Older adults who age well often show the biological profile of someone significantly younger: say, a 95-year-old with the cellular profile of a 75-year-old. 

Diet, exercise, sleep, and social connections all appear to influence the rate at which the body ages. So do income, education, and even ZIP code. 

In Boston, Mair pointed out, a recent report found a 23-year difference in life expectancy between the neighborhoods of Back Bay and Roxbury, which are barely two miles apart. It’s a stunning gulf, but it’s also an improvement: In 2007, the discrepancy was 33 years. 

“Aging is something that you can speed up and slow down through policy, through drugs and genetics, through things like exercise and healthy food,” Mair said. “It doesn’t mean we can all live to 150, but it does mean that there are things we can do.”

Fighting the urge to retreat 

Long before patients with Alzheimer’s disease show signs of cognitive decline, they often display behavioral changes, says Nancy Donovan, a Harvard Medical School associate professor of psychiatry at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the director of the Neuropsychiatry of Aging Research Group. Those symptoms can include irritability, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and a loss of motivation. 

This can create a cycle, she said, both for people with Alzheimer’s and for adults with the usual slumps in stamina and strength that accompany even robust older age. Older adults who begin to feel the early effects of cognitive and physical decline often respond by pulling back from the work and social engagements that structured their days. 

“People start to decline, and then they withdraw,” Donovan said. “But those things we do in our everyday life actually support our ongoing cognition and healthy aging. Disengagement may precipitate further decline.” 

The psychological challenges of later life are daunting. Older adults face the loss of friends and loved ones. They must learn to rely on others for care. And they must reconstruct a sense of purpose uncoupled from their professional identities. 

“One does have to respond to these various threats to well-being, with the help of your social network and your resources,” she said. “We’re getting inundated with advice for healthy physical aging and healthy cognitive aging, but not healthy psychological aging. What supports a positive psychological transition towards the end of life?” 

Donovan’s prescription is an echo of groups like the Gray Panthers. She encourages older adults to fight the urge to retreat. “Amp up your exercise. Pay more attention to your health behaviors. Stay curious and engaged in the world.” 

But at age 69, Donovan knows from personal experience that there is something uniquely positive about aging, too. She and her peers are traveling the world, trying new things, and investing in their hobbies. “You can appreciate your life better from the perspective of values and meaning, and this can guide you into late life.

“We’re relishing this period of freedom,” she added. “Many of us have parents who have passed away, so our major caretaking responsibilities have ended. If you still have your health, it’s a peak phase. The years before 75 or 80 can be the best time of life.”

Juries in federal and state courts said this week in a pair of bellwether cases that tech companies are liable for public health harms to young users on their platforms. The decisions represent a blow to the broad protections long enjoyed by firms against legal liability for user content posted on social media websites.

In Los Angeles, a 20-year-old woman sued Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, and YouTube, successfully argued the tech giants designed their platforms with addictive features that targeted teens and children. A jury awarded her $3 million.

A jury in New Mexico found that Meta had violated state consumer protection law by failing to safeguard minors from online sexual predators and misleading the public about its safety. The company was ordered to pay $375 million in damages.

In this edited conversation, I. Glenn Cohen, the deputy dean and James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, discusses the verdicts and what they mean for social media’s future.

The federal trial in Los Angeles was a very closely watched case. How significant is this?

The verdict is significant for the plaintiffs, but standing alone, [it’s] not a huge amount for Meta or YouTube to pay. Compare this to the $375 million verdict in the New Mexico attorney general’s case (on a different legal theory) to see the difference in scale.

But the key is that this is just the first of thousands of filed cases. It is one of several bellwether trials meant to play out the various legal theories, defenses, and settlements.

If Meta or YouTube had to pay the same amount of damages in each of the cases that would be a very large liability, but all evidence suggests that the plaintiffs were strategic in choosing to start with this case, which may have particularly compelling facts about damage to the plaintiff.

At the same time, even if other cases in the set are less compelling, the large amount in this case likely will serve as an “anchor” to other plaintiffs in any settlement negotiation and may make the plaintiffs hold out for a higher dollar amount in any settlement.

TikTok and Snapchat settled out of this case for undisclosed sums. For Snapchat, which is a much smaller company, I think this just increases the stakes for them if they have many more cases to come.

The plaintiff argued an untested legal theory — that social media companies intentionally design these platforms so that children and teenagers get addicted to using their products. Were you surprised by the verdict?

Not particularly. I might have guessed that the punitive damages — meant to punish the defendant beyond what is needed to compensate the plaintiff — might have been higher still.

How do you expect Meta and Google, which owns YouTube, will react?

I think they are likely to appeal the case. They may have other grounds, but they are almost certain to argue on appeal that Section 230 [of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from liability for third-party content posted on websites] should have prohibited their liability, and perhaps other arguments about how the trial was conducted — so, evidence that they think should have been excluded, for example, that was included.

I am sure they will do a deep dive as to what they believe swayed the jury and retool their arguments for the next several bellwether cases.

Should they appeal, argue that, and win, the amount suggested by the jury will never be paid.

Twice this week, juries found social media companies liable for harm involving children. Do these losses in state and federal court suggest something larger is afoot on the issue of social media liability or is it too soon to say?

I think it is a bit too soon to say, but it does lend some credence to the comparison my co-authors and I have made in a recent article to tobacco and opioid litigation. As in tobacco, different kinds of plaintiffs (here: children, AGs) are advancing different theories at the same time in a sort of pincer movement on the social media companies.

As the liability risk piles up, a master settlement that will handle all or much of the litigation becomes more attractive.

It is harder to say what effect it will have on legislative action by Congress — whether it makes legislators more interested in intervening in new regulation or makes them more content to let tort law play out in the courts.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken ’84 said the future of U.S. and Israeli involvement in the war with Iran will likely come down to “markets and munitions” as both sides exchanged ceasefire proposals and renewed attacks this week.

The prospect of steep declines in global energy markets, U.S. financial exchanges, and stockpiles of Israeli missile interceptors will serve as “guardrails” on how far the administration will go, Blinken told David Sanger ’82, a White House and national security correspondent for The New York Times during a talk Tuesday evening at Harvard Kennedy School.

Blinken spoke of the very different approaches the last three presidents have taken with Iran and reflected candidly on the nation’s handling of the war in Gaza during his time leading the State Department during the Biden administration.

“The problem now is this: I think the president could if he chose, and I suspect this is what will happen, just declare victory and game over,” he said about the administration’s next move in Iran. “Except it won’t be, because Iran will have actually demonstrated something that we suspected but didn’t actually know, which is it has ability to leverage the Strait of Hormuz in ways that are profoundly disruptive and give it an asymmetric advantage in the region and indeed around the world.”

The Obama administration considered taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon. But U.S. leaders decided instead to pursue a diplomatic solution, which resulted in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, said Blinken, who was deputy national security adviser in 2013 when an interim pact was reached and deputy secretary of state when the deal was finalized.

At the time, the U.S. concluded that military action could result in unacceptable risks and that ultimately, Iran could end up simply rebuilding its enriched uranium stockpile and stashing it deeper underground and out of reach, he said.

President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in 2018 during his first term. Iran still had some centrifuges and since then has continued to produce fissile materials and “moved from a breakout time of more than one year to a matter of a week, maybe two weeks,” he said, referring to how long it would take to enrich enough material to create a weapon.

Now, because of the U.S. and Israel bombing campaign that began Feb. 28, there’s a “strong chance” that if the Iranian regime survives — which seems likely, given its diffuse structure — that nation will be more determined than ever to build a nuclear weapon, Blinken said.

During the campus event, Blinken also responded to criticism over the Biden administration’s support for Israel even as its war with Hamas, triggered by the deadly terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023, resulted in a humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

Blinken said Gaza was a challenge he confronted daily while in office and something he still “continues to grapple with.”

“When it comes to Gaza … given the level of human suffering, given the horrific loss of life among Palestinian women, men, and children, you can’t help but ask yourself on a regular basis could we, should we, have done something different?” he said.

“And the short answer is, maybe yes.”

He noted the U.S. was faced with trying to balance several competing interests as well as the limits to its influence in the conflict.

Blinken conceded the Biden administration was not able to get a lasting ceasefire but said he did manage to help put a tentative halt in place, arrange for the release of some Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and get 25,000 aid trucks going into Gaza.

Making the case for diplomacy, Blinken said it’s more important than ever that the U.S. renew efforts to bring coalitions of countries and other stakeholders together to work through issues as the world faces rapid technological and social change, the ascendancy of China as a superpower, and the erosion of post-World War II rules-based order and institutions.

“That’s what I fear is one of the things we’re losing in the approach that we’re taking now,” he said. “There is so much strength to be found in numbers and in alignment, in convergence, in the approach to a given problem. I think that’s where we need to go, certainly to get back to, as we deal with China in the years ahead.”

A study led by a recent Harvard graduate analyzed Massachusetts education and unemployment data for insights on how high schools affect students’ long-term educational and earning outcomes. It found that on average, schools that help students succeed in the long run are those that raise their 10th-grade test scores and boost their college plans the most.  

In an interview edited for clarity and length, Preeya Mbekeani, Ed.D. ’20, discussed lessons for parents, educators, and policymakers in the findings, which were published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Why do we know so little about the impact of high schools on students’ longer-term educational and labor market outcomes?

There are two reasons. The first is, in part, logistical, because the data systems that track students’ educational outcomes over time were only established in the United States in the early 2000s. States began collecting annual data on students and their performance on standardized tests in a systematic way since then. Over time, they were able, through these data systems, to bring together data from higher education institutions, and even more recently, as Massachusetts has done, they’ve connected the student data to information on labor market earnings from the unemployment insurance agency in the state. Even 10 or 15 years ago, we just didn’t have the data infrastructure to do a study like this. The other reason is that the cohorts we study entered high school about 20 years ago, so we’re looking at students right around the time that these data systems were first established. We needed that longtime horizon because earnings for students can be quite variable in their first years in the labor market, and we wanted to be able to capture their individual earnings as adults in their early 30s.

Talk about your study sample and methodology.

We had a total of about 285,000 students in our study. We used student-level data on five cohorts of high school students in Massachusetts public high schools. The first cohort are students who entered high school in the 2002-2003 school year, and the last cohort entered in the 2006-2007 school year. This work was done as part of a long-standing partnership between researchers affiliated at Brown and Harvard and the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to analyze students’ progress through the Massachusetts education system and into the workforce.

We estimated what are called school value-added models, which are intended to estimate the causal impact of schools on student outcomes. The way this methodology is designed is that rather than looking at average test score levels of students, we’re trying to isolate what it is that schools have contributed to students’ test scores or the other outcomes.

The study found that high schools can affect students’ college enrollment and completion as well as their future earnings. How so?

We measured schools’ impacts on students for college-going and completion and earnings using value-added models. This produced schools’ estimated impact on each of these outcomes, so that we could compare lower- and higher-performing schools. You can think about lining them up in order of their impacts, with high-performing schools at the 80th percentile of the distribution and low-performing schools at the 20th percentile.

Based on our analysis, we find that students who are attending high-performing high schools are 11 percent more likely to enroll in college and they are 31 percent more likely to graduate from a four-year college compared to those attending low-performing high schools. We also see big differences in earnings across high schools. Students attending those high-performing schools, which are very effective at raising earnings, earn about 25 percent more, or over $10,000 more in 2024 dollars, at age 30, than students in the low-performing high schools.

This finding is important because it’s one thing to know that schools vary in the longer-run outcomes they produce for students, but for practitioners and people who work in schools, they want to understand how to produce these impacts. For a long time, education has relied on test scores to measure high schools, but we wanted to look at other measures as well. Through student surveys, Massachusetts has collected information on students’ college plans. Students in the cohorts we studied were asked this question in eighth grade and in 10th grade, so we can see how going to the high school they attend impacts their plans for college. We found that schools that are effective in raising 10th-grade test scores are also effective at increasing students’ aspirations for college. There’s also a positive correlation with their effects on the longer-run outcomes of getting students to complete college and having higher earnings.

Can you explain what your study found on the impacts of high schools on low-income students’ college completion and earnings?

A lot of our interest in this topic began because we wanted to see how schools can increase students’ educational and economic outcomes and contribute to their socioeconomic mobility. We know that for students who grow up in low-income households, or in poverty, schools can be very important for their later life outcomes. In this study in particular, we found that schools that that are effective at improving outcomes for low-income students are also effective for high-income students. We found that schools that produce the highest value-add by promoting both positive college completion outcomes and earning outcomes are schools where more of the students are from high-income families, but we also see that among schools that serve larger percentages of low-income students there are very effective high schools.

What are your study’s contributions to the literature?

Our paper makes two key contributions to understanding high schools’ impacts on student outcomes. Our paper is the first to look at outcomes that are long-run, far into students’ future, for a broad set of high schools. Other papers have looked at impacts on college enrollment, but ours is the first to look at four-year college completion, and at labor market earnings. We also document how much variation there is across high schools in these long-term outcomes. The second contribution is to connect what schools are doing while students are in high school and how those shorter-run measures predict or don’t predict the schools’ impacts on longer-term outcomes. That’s where we think the research can be useful and informative for practitioners and policymakers to understand; what is it the schools are doing now and how does that relate to future outcomes for students?

The study found that schools that improve 10th-grade test scores more have larger effects on both four-year college graduation and earnings, but testing remains controversial.

Yes, testing is controversial. What’s particularly controversial about testing is not the tests themselves, but how the tests get used for accountability for students, teachers, and schools. We don’t really speak to that kind of accountability, but our work shows that test scores are an important measure to understand schools’ effects, both in the shorter term and the longer term. We find that schools that raise student test scores more than expected are also those that are more effective in improving longer-run educational and earnings outcomes. That being said, our work shows that tests are an important measure, but they are not the only one.

What policies and initiatives would help high schools make a positive difference in the life outcomes of students?

Our work shows that we should think more broadly about the measures we use to assess school effectiveness. Test scores are an important measure, but they don’t tell the whole story. And while we have been using these standardized test scores for a long time in education, our work and others’ work have shown that other measures related to social and emotional outcomes and college aspirations can also tell us critical information around how schools affect students in the long run. Educators, parents, and policymakers on some level know this already. As parents, we want schools to do more for students, beyond just raising their test scores; we want schools to make them stronger citizens, caring neighbors, and so on. I think our study provides some evidence to suggest that there are other things that we can measure that can tell us about what schools are doing for students, and how that relates to long-term outcomes.

Harvard Hillel is celebrating Passover this spring in a big way, with a 9-foot Seder Plate standing in Science Center Plaza.

The sculpture, created by local artist Michael Mittelman, features unique iconography in the slots traditionally occupied by six symbolic foods that tell the story of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt. The images are inspired by stories from Harvard students, faculty, and alumni celebrating Jewish identity and traditions. “The People’s Plate” will be on display through Thursday as part of a week of events hosted by Hillel to celebrate Passover and Jewish life on campus.

The project was led in part by Rabbi Elisha Gechter, senior director of community engagement at Hillel.

“Michael and I spent time interviewing six different people and asking them a series of questions about where they feel belonging in the Jewish community, where they feel sometimes they have to keep parts of their identity hidden, different childhood memories, different ideas about legacy,” Gechter said. “Michael, in listening to those answers, came up with these beautiful visual representations of their stories.”

It’s Mittelman’s first piece of public art. Previously, he said, his work has been focused on the intersection of art and technology.

“The goal was to make it something of joy and positivity,” Mittelman said.

The final product shows imagery of gathering, conversation, and a chopped-down tree that still reflects its past standing tall.

“That came out of a conversation that was really about seeing all sides of a situation, seeing that even in the losing side of the argument, the language of the argument is still treasured,” Mittelman said.

Anonymous written versions of the six stories will appear alongside the plate. Mittelman described them as thought-provoking stories from people of different backgrounds and levels of religiosity.

“Any good artwork makes people ask questions, and I would hope that it shows a level of complexity that requires some more investigation,” Mittelman said. “My hope is that people go, ‘Oh, there is not one point of view. There’s not one approach.’ And maybe it’s worth looking into what these differences are.”

Azaria Sussman, a first-year at Harvard College and the social co-chair for Harvard Hillel, said the project was important to him precisely because of the diversity observed by Mittelman.

“It doesn’t just represent one sort of Judaism, but lots of different experiences,” Sussman said.

Gechter said she hopes that the artwork resonates with passersby regardless of their backgrounds.

“We hope they’ll be curious, and they’ll read more, and have a bigger picture of what it means to be Jewish,” she said. “We also want it to be that for Jewish constituents on campus or in town; they walk by and feel proud about what’s there, and they feel like it’s relatable, even if some parts might be challenging in some ways.”

NASA astronaut, Harvard-trained physician, and decorated Navy SEAL veteran Jonny Kim, M.D. ’16, will be the featured speaker at the annual Harvard Alumni Day celebration on June 5.

“Jonny Kim has devoted his life to serving others,” said President Alan M. Garber ’77, Ph.D. ’82. “In his journey from the front lines to the emergency room to the stars, he has found purpose in being a part of something larger than himself — and he has shown a determination to leave the world better than he found it. I have no doubt that his words will resonate with his fellow alumni, who are guided by those same values.”

In 2025, Kim spent eight months aboard the International Space Station as an Expedition 72/73 flight engineer. In the orbiting laboratory, he conducted a wide range of scientific experiments and technology demonstrations aimed at improving life on Earth and advancing NASA’s Artemis campaign. Artemis seeks to return humans to the moon and lay the foundation for deep-space exploration to more distant destinations such as Mars. During the expedition, Kim logged 245 days in space, orbiting the Earth 3,920 times and traveling nearly 104 million miles.

Kim never imagined such a future while growing up in Los Angeles, where he was born and raised by South Korean immigrants. He has spoken openly about a difficult childhood, which drove him to enlist in the U.S. Navy after high school.

In 2005, Kim joined SEAL Team 3, serving as a medic, sniper, navigator, and point man on more than 100 combat operations. He received the Silver and Bronze Stars for treating wounded teammates during two tours in Iraq — experiences that inspired him to pursue medicine.

Through the Navy’s enlisted-to-officer program, Kim completed a bachelor’s degree in mathematics from the University of San Diego in 2012 before attending Harvard Medical School. While in Boston, he met Scott Parazynski, a physician-turned-astronaut who encouraged him to apply to the NASA astronaut corps. In 2017, a year into his emergency medicine residency at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Kim was one of a dozen candidates picked by NASA from more than 18,000 applicants.

Now a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy, Kim earned the elite title of aeromedical dual designator in 2023 as both a naval aviator and a flight surgeon. A husband and father of three, he has credited his family, mentors, and the communities that support him — including those he found at Harvard — with much of his success.

All alumni are invited to join the festivities on campus or online. Learn more at alumni.harvard.edu/alumni-day.

Excerpted from “How To Disagree Better” by Julia Minson, professor of public policy. Published by Avery, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC.

The algorithm we developed not only helped us identify which words and phrases of conversational language increased and decreased perceptions of receptiveness but also which features were the most important because they had the greatest impact or could be ignored because they were very rarely used in natural conversation. I am not very creative, but thankfully my students are. After a bit of brainstorming, they came up with a snappy acronym to help memorize the most important features of conversational receptiveness. The acronym is H.E.A.R. as in “I HEAR you.” H.E.A.R. became a way for us to teach people a “receptiveness recipe” — years of research condensed into a list of bullet points.

The “H” in H.E.A.R. stands for “Hedging your claims.” Hedging makes it clear that no matter how right you think you are, you recognize that there are exceptions to nearly every rule and that most issues are complex and multifaceted. Here are some examples:

“While most doctors believe that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe and effective, some people have experienced dangerous side effects.”

“It seems that most immigrants are law-abiding and well intentioned people, but many reasonable voters are still likely to believe that borders should be secured and laws should be followed.”

Using hedging words such as “sometimes,” “perhaps,” “possibly,” “most,” and “some” shows your counterpart that you recognize the complexity and nuance of the world we live in. A point made with a verbal hedge (“I think that most of the time women do just as well in high-stress jobs as men”) is more likely to advance the conversation productively than the same point made without the hedge (“Women do just as well in high-stress jobs as men”).

The advice to hedge accurate claims can sometimes raise eyebrows among people who are concerned about sounding less certain than how they really feel. But remember, the goal is to show that you are engaged with the other person’s point of view, not that you have so completely rejected it as to have zero doubt about your own correctness. To the extent that the issues we debate are multifaceted and complex, hedging shows a person to be more thoughtful and have better judgment than someone who expresses their own views with no room for doubt.

The “E” in H.E.A.R. stands for “Emphasizing agreement.” Almost in any argument, two people can find something to agree on. You might be pro-life, and I might be pro-choice, but we both agree that parenting is hard work. You might believe that gun rights should be limited, and I that they are fundamental to individual freedom, but we both agree that a gun in the wrong hands can lead to tragedy. You might think we need to cut staff and I think that we need to add more, but we both agree that client satisfaction is our top priority. Using words such as “we both agree that” or “I also want to” or “I share some of your concerns” allows parties to identify common ground, which is often more extensive than they initially imagined. Highlighting shared areas of understanding makes people feel that they are on the same team, navigating the disagreement together.

Importantly, emphasizing areas of agreement does not mean changing your mind or compromising. Rather, it means recognizing common values and experiences that connect us all and devoting a few words toward making that agreement explicit. In cases of known disagreement (like when we belong to different political parties or different competing departments, or when we’ve had this argument before), people tend to exaggerate the magnitude of that disagreement and hold negative and often inaccurate beliefs about their counterparts’ views. Emphasizing agreement can mitigate the effects of those stereotypes by highlighting to your counterpart how much you have in common.

The “A” in H.E.A.R. stands for “Acknowledging other perspectives.” In most disagreements, people make their point quickly and repeatedly. They will often interrupt their counterpart to contradict their ideas, as if the opposing argument is an annoying stinging insect to be swatted out of the air as quickly as possible. Go ahead and ask your spouse to explain their perspective on a long-running disagreement and try not to interrupt them for five minutes — it is incredibly difficult! Acknowledging the opposing perspective is even harder. Acknowledgment means that when it is finally your turn to speak, you must donate some of your own precious airtime to restate the other person’s point of view so as to show them with your words that you really heard them. This may be done with phrases such as “I understand that you really care about …” or “Thank you for telling me about …” or “You are suggesting that …” Performing acknowledgment effectively means slowing down the argument to show you’re listening even as you are about to launch into your own spiel.

Acknowledgment is certainly not a new idea, and many of you may have taken a leadership or communication training that advised you to tell counterparts in disagreement that you “hear them.” Indeed, this advice has become so common that poor execution of acknowledgment has spawned a variety of popular memes. On Instagram and TikTok, a variety of comedic characters (my favorites are evil-looking cats) say things like “I hear you, but …” The stony-faced expression of the cat makes it very clear that it did not in fact “hear.” By contrast, effective acknowledgment requires restating the counterpart’s point of view in your own words, to behaviorally demonstrate that you did in fact do the listening and understanding what you want to get credit for.

For example: “I hear you, but we just don’t have the budget” is no good. A better version might be: “I hear you. You are really concerned with how the quality of the cabinet hardware will impact the overall appearance of the new construction. I know that meeting the highest standards of quality is really important to you. I just don’t think we have the budget.” In this example, the speaker demonstrated that they heard their counterpart and the exact nature of their concerns. They didn’t just claim that they understood with no evidence. Notice that in both cases the end is the same — the speaker believes that there is no budget for upgraded hardware — but the fact that they demonstrated listening through acknowledgment makes a big difference in how that conclusion is likely to land.

The “R” in H.E.A.R. stands for “Reframing to the positive.” The R does double duty by reminding you to avoid negation words (such as “can’t,” “don’t,” won’t,” and “no”) and negative emotion words (“hate,” “terrible”), and adding more positively valanced words (“great,” “like,” “win”). For example, if I am feeling frustrated in a conversation because my counterpart has interrupted me, I might be tempted to say, “I hate it when people interrupt me. Please don’t.” But instead, the same message can be delivered by saying, “I can tell it’s hard for you to hear me out. I would really appreciate your letting me finish.”

Just like the earlier components of H.E.A.R., “Reframing to the positive” is not intended to change the core of the message. The speaker is still conveying their desire to finish their sentences at their own pace. But adding the positive framing creates a perception of warmth and is more likely to avoid escalation.

The H.E.A.R. framework captures a lot of the important components of conversational receptiveness, but if you have a bit of extra brain space, I want to highlight two more that are worth keeping an eye on. First, try to avoid reasoning words such as “because,” “therefore,” and “explain.” These words often crop up when you are patiently trying to enlighten your counterpart about the obvious and extremely logical conclusions that anybody with half a brain ought to draw in a particular situation. “And because heat rises, the car will be much warmer if you use the vents by your feet.” Heat does rise, and the car will probably be warmer, but the explanatory words make the argument sound condescending. By trying to sound extra smart and logical, you are actually decreasing the chances that your counterpart will take your well- meaning advice.

The other feature to avoid is “adverb limiters.” You can be forgiven if you have never heard the term, but adverbs are words that modify other words. Adverb limiters are the little words that make the word coming after them seem smaller, and less consequential. “It’s just polite to ask before you borrow somebody’s stuff.” Or “I am merely suggesting we consider the consequences of this policy before we roll it out company wide.” Words like “just,” “simply,” “merely,” and “only” are often intended to show that what you are asking for or claiming is simple, obvious, and should be easily agreed to. But instead, they serve to minimize the validity of your counterpart’s view and again, add a dash of condescension. Try to avoid these little packets of conversational poison.

The receptiveness recipe turned out to be easy to learn. In experiment after experiment, we presented the components of the H.E.A.R. framework to research participants and gave them some examples of each feature. It turned out that they could easily incorporate our advice into arguments on a variety of topics. The participants trained in conversational receptiveness were seen as more trustworthy, more objective, and more desirable as future teammates and collaborators by those with whom they disagreed. Importantly, these effects persisted even when people debated some of the thorniest topics of our day: the necessity of COVID-19 vaccines, affirmative action in hiring, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the American investment in fighting international terrorism. And importantly, because participants were randomly assigned to receive or not receive training in conversational receptiveness, we could conclude that their word choice, and not some other extraneous features, caused these positive outcomes.

In sum, using conversational receptiveness enabled our research participants to express their point of view while being seen as more reasonable, thoughtful, and trustworthy, even when they were discussing some of the most inflammatory topics we could think of. It also led their counterparts to be willing to have additional conversations on these and other topics, opening the possibility of ongoing dialogue and problem-solving. When participants were not trying to score a quick rhetorical point by being extra clever and dogmatic in their arguments, they were seen as the sorts of people that others want to keep talking to. And isn’t that the key to influence?

Copyright © 2026 by Julia Minson.

The “jobless recovery” from the 2008 global financial crisis was the most severe in U.S. and Western European history, according to researchers, as firms automated functions rather than rehire.

Today, threats to the labor market due to artificial intelligence are “of a much bigger magnitude,” said Gita Gopinath, the Gregory and Ania Coffey Professor of Economics. “The risk is that if we end up having a recession in a few years … we could go through a transition of very large job losses much bigger than what was seen after the great financial crisis.”

The former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund was one of three faculty experts to appear at this month’s “From The Studio” FAS Symposium. The live-streamed conversation, hosted by FAS Dean of Social Science David M. Cutler, touched on geopolitical hostilities, shifting trade alliances, technological disruption, and other topics of urgent importance to the global economy.

“I thought we were going to open with the future of the dollar as a reserve currency or perhaps tariffs,” said moderator Ralph Ranalli, host and co-producer of the “Economics for Inclusive Prosperity” podcast. “But as the old saying goes, ‘No plan survives the first shot being fired.’”

The economic impacts of an extended U.S.-Israel war with Iran extend far beyond surging oil prices, said panelist Carmen M. Reinhart, Minos A. Zombanakis Professor of the International Financial System at Harvard Kennedy School. She foresaw the current spike in fertilizer prices.

“Translation: higher inflation risks,” Reinhart said, noting a possible interruption of moves by the U.S. Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates.

Panelist Dani Rodrik, Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy at HKS and co-director of the Economics for Inclusive Prosperity network, remarked that the global economy has proved “surprisingly, unexpectedly, relatively unaffected” by a succession of shocks due to tariffs and other actions since President Trump took office 14 months ago.

But the author of “Shared Prosperity in a Fractured World: A New Economics for the Middle Class, the Global Poor, and Our Climate” (2025) also sees a psychological disconnect with the fundamentals of a U.S.-dominated economy.

Rodrik worried that cumulative crises will eventually set off “a dissipation, dissolution of the kind of optimism that is still driving U.S. growth — and is driving a certain amount of stability in the rest of the world.”

A year ago, the world appeared to be backing away from the U.S. dollar. Rodrik recalled the dollar depreciating after Trump introduced his “Liberation Day” tariffs last spring.

Rodrik interpreted these events as “a very clear vote of no confidence in the U.S.”

But the new war in the Middle East appears to have bolstered the greenback’s standing as a safehaven with global investors and central bankers, the panelists agreed.

“We have seen a resurgence in the dollar as the classic ‘flight to quality’ has taken root,” said Reinhart, co-author of “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly” (2009).

What could finally trigger “a stampede” from the dollar, when there’s no alternative in sight? Reinhart suggested it would take the reintroduction of capital controls, akin to restrictions on holding gold that President Franklin D. Roosevelt levied in 1933.

At the moment, capital controls are not on the table in the U.S., Reinhart noted.

“Then again, I didn’t think 19th-century tariffs were also on the table,” she said.

Britain’s exit from the European Union was recalled while weighing the possible long-term effects of U.S. tariffs. Both events were fueled by desires for tighter borders and greater support for domestic supply chains.

From the start, Gopinath said, consensus held that the 2016 Brexit referendum would damage the British economy. But after two years, rates of investment remained strong.

“It looked like, wow, that was much ado about nothing,” said Gopinath, who rejoined the Harvard faculty last fall following more than six years at the IMF. “But it slowly worked through the system. Now, if you look back, the estimates of the effect of Brexit on the U.K. economy were very large.”

Ranalli asked whether the global economy would be in recession if not for AI, alluding to recent investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in the technology. Gopinath replied quickly: “No.”

Did the panelists think current investments in AI, increasingly financed by credit, represent a bubble?

“Are the symptoms there? The answer is yes,” Reinhart said.

AI has the potential to act as an equalizer, Rodrik argued. “It takes the knowledge, the skills, the experience of more educated professionals and makes them available to those who are less skilled and less experienced,” he noted.

The challenge is that channeling the technology to serve the common good would require a level of democratic engagement not currently on view. According to one estimate, 30 percent of jobs in advanced economies like the U.S. are vulnerable to disruptions from artificial intelligence.

If there is an AI bubble, and if it bursts, the damage could extend far beyond individual households. Citing a 2021 paper by Princeton economist Atif Mian, panelists took turns gauging potential consequences for the globaleconomy.

In most countries, the majority of public revenue is raised by taxing labor income, Gopinath said. Capital income is taxed at lower rates for good reasons that boil down to encouraging investments.

“But if AI leads to a transformation, where the labor share goes down by a lot more and the capital share goes up by a lot more, you can’t run the kinds of programs you’re running, in terms of entitlements, without having a higher capital income tax,” she said. “It’s just not viable.”

When Jennifer Breheny Wallace ’94 was growing up, her parents held her to high standards, but they also ensured she knew she mattered no matter what. Later, while researching her first book, “Never Enough: When Achievement Culture Becomes Toxic — and What We Can Do About It,” she began to see just how much mattering matters — to nearly every aspect of life. This led to her recently published second book, the instant New York Times best-seller “Mattering: The Secret to a Life of Deep Connection and Purpose,” which she discusses in the following interview, which has been edited for clarity and length.

What is mattering and how does it affect different aspects of our lives?

Mattering is defined by researchers as feeling valued by ourselves, our family, our friends, our colleagues, and society — and then having an opportunity to add value back. There are key ingredients to mattering: feeling significant, feeling appreciated, feeling invested in, feeling depended on. Morris Rosenberg first conceptualized mattering in the 1980s and he talked about how, after food and shelter, it is the motivation to matter that drives human behavior, for better or for worse.

Do you have examples?

When we feel like we matter, we show up in positive ways: We want to engage, contribute, and connect with people. When we feel like we don’t matter, we might withdraw, turn to substances, numb ourselves with our screens. Or someone might act out in destructive ways: Road rage, political extremes, mass shootings, and terrorism are desperate attempts to say, “Oh, I don’t matter? I’ll show you I matter.” A study I quoted in the book shares that for suicidal men, the two most common words used to describe their suffering are “useless” and “worthless.” Those are the words of feeling like you don’t matter.

One thing that keeps me up at night is what AI is doing to this deep human need to matter that we all have. Tech entrepreneurs predict that within the next 10 years, humans may not be required for most tasks. What happens when we no longer have people depending on us, when we don’t have an opportunity to add value? We talk rightfully about universal basic income, getting those basic needs for food and shelter met, but we need more than that. We need to think about how humans are still going to matter.

What are ways that we can show others they matter to us?

To feel like we matter we must feel valued but also have a chance to add value to the world around us. One of the greatest sources of self-esteem is to feel useful. And when we see our value, feel appreciated, and know that people depend on us, we feel that we’ve made a difference.

But I will also make the point that mattering requires balancing our own needs with the needs of others. Think about the research on the caregiver crisis. First responders are burning out. People in medical professions — so critical to everyone else’s needs — never have their own needs prioritized. True mattering requires us to matter to ourselves. Prioritize your needs; not when everybody else’s needs are met, not when it’s the end of the day and you’re exhausted, but really radically prioritize them. Also, find people who remind you of how much you matter. As humans, our resilience rests fundamentally on the depth and support of our relationships. We are often told by the multibillion-dollar wellness industry to soak in a bubble bath and light a candle. Those are great stress reducers, but they do not give us the resilience we need to show up day in and day out for the people who rely on us — and how to show up for ourselves.

Could you talk about the tension between self-reliance and mattering?

We have become so self-reliant in our culture today. But when I don’t ask someone for help, when I don’t lean on someone, I am denying that person the chance to be a helper, to let him or her know how much they matter to me. When we think about mattering in those terms, then asking for help isn’t weak or selfish. It’s an act of generosity. It is how we reinforce to someone that we need them in our lives. It’s how we send them the signal that they matter to us.

Do we have agency over our own mattering or is it something that’s in the hands of other people?

We do have agency. Especially during life transitions, our sense of mattering can get rattled. Maybe we’re going through grief, where we mattered so much to someone and now they’re gone. Maybe we’ve retired, lost a job, or relocated. I talk about two ways to take agency over our mattering during transitions. The first one is looking for role models: Who are people who have gone through similar life transitions? Use their example to create a blueprint for yourself. And then the second way is to lean on the power of invitation. We often feel like we need to have our lives in order before we accept or extend invitations. But there’s wonderful research called the beautiful mess effect which finds that we overestimate how put together we need to be to earn someone’s trust and admiration — and underestimate how letting somebody in to see a little bit of our messy lives makes us more authentic and actually draws people closer to us. You don’t need to wait for your life to be perfect to invest in your mattering.

Excerpted from “How to Feel Loved: The Five Mindsets That Get You More of What Matters Most” by Sonja Lyubomirsky ’89 and Harry Reis.

“Just be yourself.” It’s a cliché we’ve all heard before, maybe even rolled our eyes at. But when you’re in a relationship or friendship where you’re not feeling as loved as you’d like to feel, what does that expression actually mean? We’ve suggested that many people aren’t being themselves: Instead of showing themselves, they show off themselves. Yet herein lies both a paradox and a blessing. The paradox is that feeling loved is earned not through achieving perfection but through presenting more of your full self — your values, experiences, quirks, and dreams, even the small, unpolished details of your daily life. Sharing your struggles and imperfections can build connection, too, but feeling loved isn’t just about revealing your flawed, imperfect self — it’s about revealing what truly matters to you.

To be clear, feeling loved doesn’t hinge on oversharing or baring your soul to just anyone. It doesn’t mean unloading your trials and tribulations in the first five minutes after meeting. It means selectively and progressively revealing parts of yourself in a way that fosters genuine connection.

The blessing is that showing your full self is fully within your control. In fact, it’s a lot easier than contorting yourself into someone else’s ideal image. Many people believe that in order to feel more loved, they must persuade others to love them more — as if they were trying to sell someone a new car. Years of empirical studies and observation suggest that this approach is ineffective. That’s why our message is different: Feeling loved is more — much more — about you (and your mindset) than about trying to persuade the other person that you are worthy.

Yet people often behave in ways that work against feeling loved: They hide their deepest thoughts, emotions, flaws, and past misbehaviors because they are afraid of what others might think, or they fear being embarrassed or exploited. Paradoxically, the more you hide your innermost self and the less of yourself you reveal to others, the harder it is to feel truly loved and valued by the significant people in your life. This is a principle strongly supported not only by anecdotal evidence but also by relationship science. 

Moreover, when you focus on how you are coming across to others, your attention is drawn to what you are doing — for instance, trying to say just the right thing, while doing your best to make sure your shortcomings are hidden, so that you are seen as witty or attractive or brilliant. Ironically, this approach to relationships puts your attention in exactly the wrong place. You’ll find that you actually make the best impression when you focus your attention on the other person.

It’s worth noting that unveiling the complexity of your multifaceted “true” self will almost always leave you feeling vulnerable because you are exhibiting your true colors and risking losing the other person’s regard. However, vulnerability is not the goal; it is simply a necessary preliminary step. Ironically, showing weakness will make room for you to feel genuinely loved because you’ll finally be confident that the other person is appreciating and loving the real you. (Otherwise, whatever love or admiration they express will ring hollow.) To paraphrase Nobel Prize winner André Gide: It is better to be known for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. Humility and authenticity and a caring interest in others create the conditions for you to feel fully known.

In summary, then, three things have to happen for you to feel loved:

1. You have to share the complexity of your full, multifaceted self — both your strengths and your contradictions — with the other person. (No, this isn’t as simple as saying, “Let me tell you everything.”)

2. The other person has to notice what you’ve shared.

3. The other person has to care about what you’ve shared.

How do you increase the chances that the other person will notice and care? The answer is simple — you go first! That means you first need to notice and care — to show curiosity — about their multifaceted self. It may seem counterintuitive initially, but in order to create a context for sharing more of yourself, you need to focus not on yourself but on your conversation partner. You encourage them to notice and care about your full self by first noticing and caring about their full self. To feel loved by them, you begin by making them feel loved by you.

This step begins a back-and-forth process that we call the Relationship Sea-Saw. Imagine yourself and the person you wish to feel more loved by sitting on a seesaw submerged under water (hence, the deliberate spelling of Sea-Saw). Only parts of your multilayered selves are visible above the surface — these are the aspects you feel safe to share, the parts that the other person sees and loves when they tell you that they love you.

However, consider what happens when you give the other person your undivided attention — when you approach them with curiosity, listen deeply to their response, and bring to the interaction genuine warmth and an appreciation for their multidimensional self. By doing so, you help lift their self a bit higher out of the water, making more of their true self visible. When they feel truly seen, valued, and accepted — not just for their best qualities but for their whole richly textured self — they will also feel more loved by you than ever before.

Continuing with this metaphor, by pressing down, you are placing the full weight of your attention on the other person, lifting them up. As the focus shifts to them, your own self becomes temporarily more submerged. Essentially, you’re holding them up and providing them support, you’re creating the conditions that make it possible for them to open up, to be fully known, and to feel safe in revealing more of who they truly are.

Importantly, this step of lifting the other person higher isn’t a sacrifice — it’s simply a stage in a cycle. When the other person experiences the security of being deeply understood and accepted, they’re likely to reciprocate. They, too, may express curiosity in you and listen to you more attentively and warmly, embracing your full complexity with an open heart. In doing so, they help lift more of your full self above the surface, enabling more of you to be seen, understood, and valued. In this way, the act of truly knowing and loving someone else becomes the very thing that opens the door for you to feel truly known and loved in return. It’s a virtuous cycle of connection: The more connection is experienced, the more love, as well as the greater curiosity about and care for each other, is felt.

If you don’t feel loved enough, we have a profound and empowering message for you: Feeling loved is not out of your control. For some, it will require a radical shift in how you orient toward conversations with loved ones. For others, it will simply call for more practice of that muscle that enables you to deeply know another person and become deeply known by them.

Because the secret to feeling more loved is not about changing yourself or about changing the other person — it’s about changing the conversation.

© 2026 by Sonja Lyubomirsky and Harry Reis. Reprinted courtesy of Harper Books, an imprint of HarperCollins. Available wherever books are sold.

Harvard Radcliffe Institute will award the Radcliffe Medal to the renowned university leader and educator Ruth J. Simmons on Radcliffe Day, May 29.

Throughout her distinguished career, Simmons has modeled extraordinary and transformative leadership in higher education. A three-time university president who has shaped generations of students and scholars, Simmons has championed the power of education while calling on colleges and universities to uphold their foundational ideals and reckon honestly with their failures, demonstrating an uncommon steadfastness in the face of daunting pressures.

The Radcliffe Day awards program will include a testimonial by author James McBride; a video tribute by former first lady Michelle Obama, J.D. ’88; a keynote conversation between Simmons and Harvard President Emerita Drew Gilpin Faust; and the formal award presentation by Radcliffe Dean Tomiko Brown-Nagin.

Harvard Radcliffe Institute awards the Radcliffe Medal annually to an individual who embodies Radcliffe’s commitment to excellence and impact. The medal was first awarded to Lena Horne in 1987. Recent honorees include Ophelia Dahl, Jodie Foster, Melinda French Gates, Dolores Huerta, Sherrilyn Ifill, and Sonia Sotomayor.

“Ruth J. Simmons’s inspiring personal journey demonstrates the value of community and the power of education,” said Brown-Nagin, Daniel P.S. Paul Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School and professor of history in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences. “Through her fearless, principled leadership, she has had a transformative impact both on institutions that reflect the breadth of American colleges and universities and on the students and society they serve.

“I am honored to recognize Ruth Simmons at a moment when the promise of higher education that she has championed over decades — defined by opportunity and openness to difference and debate — is under threat.” 

For more information, visit the Radcliffe Day events page.

In a 2024 lawsuit, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division alleged that Live Nation Entertainment and Ticketmaster, which is owned by Live Nation, illegally stifles competition at the hundreds of venues Live Nation operates across the United States, artificially driving up ticket costs for concertgoers. The DOJ asked for the two companies, which merged in 2010, to be broken up.

But last week, while a trial was underway in federal court in Manhattan, the DOJ and Live Nation announced a settlement that will not force the company to split from Ticketmaster. The deal requires Live Nation to forgo some exclusive booking arrangements, which will allow certain venues to choose which concert promoters to work with, and also caps ticketing service fees at 15 percent at those venues.

The settlement was rejected by 36 states that had joined the DOJ’s lawsuit last year, including Massachusetts. The trial resumed Monday.

In this edited conversation, Rebecca Haw Allensworth, an antitrust scholar from Vanderbilt Law School who is currently the Ropes & Gray Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, explains the litigation and what it may mean for ticket buyers.

What is Live Nation alleged to have done with respect to ticketing and concert venues?

According to the government, Live Nation dominates three related markets. One is ticketing. If you go to a major concert, most of the time you’re going to go through Ticketmaster, and that’s owned by Live Nation. Live Nation also owns, according to the government, the vast majority of what they’re calling major concert venues, which is anything larger than a theater or small venue, but not quite a stadium. The market in which Live Nation is most dominant for venues is outdoor amphitheaters. They also own a large portion of the promoting services — the entities that put on the concert, advertise it, come up with some of the concepts for the tour.

The problem, from the government’s perspective, is that if you want to enter any one of these markets as a competitor, you’ll find yourself dealing with Ticketmaster or Live Nation. That puts Live Nation in a position of controlling competition at all three layers.

That’s an example of vertical integration — a company that operates on multiple levels within the same market. The major problem with vertical integration is what it does for potential competitive entry. It’s how Live Nation has managed to stay as dominant and grow its dominance over the last 15 years.

The settlement appears far less punitive to Live Nation than what the DOJ initially sought. What happened?

The Biden administration asked for a breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. That is not a part of the settlement. The settlement the DOJ appears to have agreed to would put some restrictions on what Live Nation and Ticketmaster could do with the business, with contracts, with artists, with contracts, with venues. It has a 15 percent cap on the fees that Ticketmaster can charge, but only for amphitheaters — a small fraction of Ticketmaster’s business.

Antitrust is meant to protect competition with the belief that stronger competition is better for consumers. This doesn’t do a lot to protect competition. Rather, it’s like a Band Aid over the symptoms of poor competition. There are a few examples in the agreement that do have the possibility of opening up competition to a limited extent, but nothing that would go as far as a breakup would to create opportunities for a ticketer or a promoter to enter the market. That’s what the breakup was going to be for.

Was breaking up Ticketmaster and Live Nation a real possibility or an example of antitrust overreach that critics of the Biden administration often complained about?

Oh, it was a very real possibility. This is really different, for example, from the Google monopolization case over search. There, a breakup was always very unlikely. Here, a breakup was probably the most likely remedy if they had found liability. And I think liability was likely because of how strong the remaining claims were and the fact that it was a jury trial. One way of understanding this settlement is that Live Nation-Ticketmaster was legitimately worried about the breakup.

Does the settlement meaningfully address the anti-competitive issues or reduce costs to ticket buyers? As you mentioned, the 15 percent cap on ticket fees is only at amphitheaters, not other types of venues, where most concerts are held.  

The 15 percent sounds good on paper. But when you’re vertically integrated, you can take your profit in a different market. So, maybe the prices will be reduced slightly in ticketing, but then they will go up in promotion services or elsewhere. That’s a problem.

When Ticketmaster sells its ticketing to a venue, they’re no longer going to be requiring it to be exclusive. That could be a limited toehold for a competitor to occupy. But there is nothing in the term sheet outlining the basic terms of the settlement suggesting that the pricing must be the same for both exclusive and non-exclusive, which leads me to conclude that they could charge more for non-exclusive deals. That could have the same effect as requiring exclusivity if it’s significantly cheaper. This is the problem with a nonstructural remedy, with a non-breakup: they’re still huge, they’re still a monopolist, the venues are still afraid of them, and the artists still have to go through them. So, they have the power to do the same thing through other means because they are such a powerful monopolist in this space.

Dozens of states are now pressing ahead with the trial. Is there still a chance ticket buyers could get more favorable terms?

Yes, the states could still win and get a better outcome for consumers. The judge in this case could order a remedy that goes beyond the settlement with the DOJ, including the possibility of a breakup — the very outcome that Live Nation seems to have been trying to avoid with the settlement.