Cash shouldn’t be king

In a shocking new whistleblower complaint, disinformation scholar Joan Donovan claims Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Dean Doug Elmendorf sidelined and eventually fired her after she discussed potential research into the so-called Facebook Papers — leaked documents showing the company now known as Meta was aware of its products’ real-world harms — and drew the ire of the Meta boss who was a big donor.

At the same time, Harvard was arranging to receive a $500 million donation from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a fund started by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.

It’s unlikely we’ll see some emails where Zuckerberg or one of his underlings demands that Harvard muzzle Donovan. A smoking gun would be satisfying, but in practice it’s not really necessary; Meta doesn’t have to insist, because the looming donation paired with some selective grumbling can be as good as a demand.

This wouldn’t mark the first time the behemoth used its financial heft to get what it wanted behind the scenes. Among other incidents over the years, the company’s splashy launch of Messenger Kids — an app targeted towards children as young as 6 — included the assurance that it had worked with outside experts to build in safeguards. It failed to mention that it had funded many of these same experts.

It wouldn’t be fair to see this as a problem specific to Meta or Harvard, if only because they’re not alone in using donations as a weapon and caving to donor demands, respectively. This has sadly become par for the course over the last several years, as donors demand that universities jettison their commitments to free speech and academic debate either in order to advance their own political agendas or stifle scrutiny they might find unwelcome.

Nothing has most clearly demonstrated this dynamic than the avalanche of donors who have made demands of varying types to universities around the country in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack and Israel’s military response. It is perfectly fine for donors to weigh in, just like anyone else, and withhold their gifts if they think that a university is not doing enough to combat antisemitism or supporting bad research.

But being generous (or not) doesn’t grant donors some sort of de facto authority at the schools. Donovan claims that her work was shut down as a favor to Zuckerberg, putting money from a billionaire over academic scholarship.

Donors, whether they be individuals, foundations or corporations, give money to universities for a number of reasons, including prestige, research interest or a general feeling that the institution is doing valuable work and should be supported. Hopefully, more will come to realize that attempts to interfere, especially if done successfully, do nothing more than cheapen the institution they’re ostensibly trying to support, devaluing whatever prestige or research or mission they’re seeking.

Harvard’s wealth and reputation are robust, but they certainly can be dented, and a great way to do that is to pile on evidence that it is what its most vocal critics contend: an institution that’s been wholly captured by elite interests to the point that its mission is mainly to please them. Other universities have even more to lose from turning their backs on the principles they claim to embrace.