JOHN HARVARD'S JOIJRNAL

Daniel Steiner outside his office ill Massachusetts Hall, where he has worked since 1970. It/side it, he has beetl 011 inj/ueJJtial preseJlct, overlappillg the admilJistrations of fll1re Hmvard presidents.

Summing Up: A Talk With Dan Steiner

Vice presidellf and general counsel Don;el Steitler, who for more tho" two decades has been the celltral administrotioll S most versa­tile member, leaves his job ill Junt 10 pursue ''fresh challellges. "

Steintt; 58, has bem gel/eraj (oumel since 1970, the last year of the PI/sey admillistra­tion. He is the first to have held the post. III the Bok administration (1971-91) he was considered the president's right-hand mall . Steiller helped shape policy 01/ a broad spec­/171m of issues, many 0/ them novel and com­plex. His administrative responsibilities were unusually broad-ranging (Jee next page),

1" this illlerview Stehler talks about Har­vanl's evo/ulio1J since 1970 and discusses some of the issues his sllccessor may face.

You arrived at a stormy moment in Har­vard history. " 'hat was il like?

For a long time during the seventies we had protests that potentiall y could go beyond-and sometimes actually did go beyond-the bounds of legitimate dis­sent. I can recall protesters coming into my office during my first years here and my stomach knotting up for fear of what was going to happen-would they leave, or would there be some sort of physical violence? T here were some important issues, but it was a very difficult period. The University lacked civility, in many ways. Fortunately, there's been a return to civility. T hat's been a good change.

What about the narure of the enter­prise? How have universities changed in lite past two decades?

Universities like Harvard have become much bigger and, in certain respects, more and more like other instiwtions in our soci­ety. In imJX>rtam ways they are perceived as similar, and are treated similarly. When I started my job, universities and other not­for-profit institutions were exempt from many federal laws. Since then the uend has been in the opposite direction. An

MAY-JUNE 1992 57

extraordinary number of laws apply to uni­versities. Some~rugs and alcohol, cam­pus security~re specifically aimed at uni­versities. As we arc more and morc regu­lated, our internal behavior changes, as well as our re lationships with external constituencies, especially political bodies.

We've become heavi ly invo lved in lobbying activities. We have sign ificant public relations operations. For financial reasons we must pay special attention to

[aX legislation. With litigation increasing, we're involved in the courtS much more. As we've tried to manage better, we've become more "businessli ke" in dealing with the outside world. Because of finan­cial pressures, we've become more entre­preneurial as we seck new sources of fund s. The net effect is that in some important ways we behave more and more like a business organization.

Are you suggesting that something is being lost in the process?

Yes, there are several problems. More internal and external regu lation uses dol­lars that would be better spenr for other purposes, and inhibits the best use of creative energies. More fundamentally, I would argue that to a certain extenr, a university like Harvard should be of this world but not in it. We will function best and ultimately contribute most to society if we are given some space and time. Society should not expect quarterly per­fo rmance reports and conformity with SEC-style accounting and disclosure standards. We, for our part, need to keep our focus on activities consistent with our values and objectives.

What about changes in the makeup of the University community?

One of the great joys of these twO decades has been the way the University has changed on issues of diversity, open­ness, equality, the role of women. Har­vard-at times under pressure, but also without pressure-has moved on these issues. In the past decade I th ink we've responded well in developing policies of nondiscrimination, including sexual ori­entation. All this has led to a better, more open, more interesting university. It 's also presented a series of challenging policy, administrative, and legal ques­tions that have made working here espe­cially rewarding. [ would add that although our student body was more homogeneolls in the past, our trad ition always favored diversity-people going

58 H ARVAR D M AGAZINt;

HARVARD'S lOP LAWYER: NEVER SHORT OF WORK " I came back to Harva rd expecting m Stay a year," recalls Dan iel Ste ine r '54, LL.B. '58. In fact hc stavcd on for 23.

Steine r, who plans [0 step down as vice president and general counsel th is June, returned to Ilarvard :1s secretary to the University-wide Commince on Gm-­ernance, formed after the student strike of 1% 9. l it! had previously pracriced law in New York City and had worked for two federa l agcnci·cs in Washington.

lie was named ge ne ral cOlln sel in 1970. O,cr the years his office grew from a one-man shop to an in-house firm of twelve attorneys handling a wide range of legal matte rs. Ste ine r has also super­vi sed Il arva rd's police and seclir ity forces, the personnel and labor relat ions deparrments, real esratc operations, and the imernarional office. li e became a vice pre side nt in 1982 and is one of fi ve administra tors who hold that ritl e.

When a troubk-shooter was needed, Steiner was usually the choice. lie also c haired co mmittees on pa te nts and copyrights, personnel policies, and llar­vard research centers in Washington and Florence. In 1972 he was acti ng ma~te r

of Eliot I iolise. Steiner is married to Prudence Linder

Steincr '58, Ph .D. '80, who tcaches at I larvard 's Extension School. The\ hm-c twO grown children: Elizabeth, a ·phys i­cian, and Joshua. assisra nt to the presi­dent of thc i\.'ew York Publ ic Library.

their own way. There was not one ac­cepted culture.

This is reflected in our alumni body. Our alumni expect things to change. They expect divers ity within the insti­tution. We have not had reactionary forces trying to interfere with the opera­[ion of the University. Alumni, by and la rge, have been very supportive. 'rhat helps a great deal.

Let's go back to the outset of your career at Harvard. Did you ever suppose you would

stay as long as you actually did? When I left the Law School in 1958 I

never expe~ted to be at Harvard again. I was working as general counsel at the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­mission in 1968, when Mr. Nixon was e lected president, and as a Democrat I

,I liff;.; fila ;1I. lIms /Ifill: Ste;l/er;1I 1970.

had {O leave soon after he took office in 1969. That spring University Hall was occupied, and as result of the bust a com­mittee was formed to review University

. governance. There was an effort {O find somebody who had no particular ties to the faculty, administra[ion. swdents, or governing boards to be the staff person. I came expecting to stay a year. \-Vhen I was offered the position of general coun­sel , I asked for assurance of two years in the job.

Can you recall how you fe lt when you started out?

I was terribly nervous that the dean of the Law School might call and ask me for legal advice. Obviously [ still had a swdent's perspective on the dean of the Law School.

What about somc of the issues that Brose early on? We might start with

Harvard's shareholder responsibilities, especially regarding South Mrica.

With varying degrees of intensity, that issue lasted into the eighties. During Derek Bok's first year as president, Mas­sachusetts Hall was seized because we owned Gu lf Oil stock and Gu lf was doing business in Angola. The occupa­tion lasted six or seven days, the demand being that we sell our Gulf stock. Subse­quently the focus shifted to South Africa.

Shareholders do have responsibilities. And because of its endowment, Harvard is a significant shareholder. At the same time, I'm a firm believer in the Universi­ty flot taking institutional positions on a wide range of social and political ques­tions. There arc groups in society whose business it is to advocate panicular posi­tions on the environment, or civil rights, or foreign affa irs, or civi l liberties. But that really is not Harvard's role.

As a stockholder, however, we have had to rake positions.

Freedom of speech has been anorher long-running issue.

It was one of the tragedies of the sev­enties that free speech took a real beat­ing here, and at many universities. But we have emerged from that period to a much better state of affairs. A tougher challenge in recent years, at Harvard and elsewhere, has been "hate speech."

I think our present policies are sound. Some felt we ought to ban certain kinds of hate speech, racial epithets, but fortu­nately that view did not prevail. Our intent is to use education rather than discipline to improve understanding, and to maintain an atmosphere that's free of intimidation and conducive to learning-to help people understand that they may have a right to say some­thing, but it may nOt be the right thing to do to say it.

How have we done in racial relations? We've progressed, but we still have a

lot to do. The broadening of the student body began in the late sixties and has continued. We've attracted some out­standing people, and many have had good experiences here . But I think there is still considerable lack of under­standing. A significam number of minor­ity students feci they are strangers at Harvard, that this is not their university. After all, it's still a very white faculty and a white environment. The pictures on the walls are mostly of white males. The

JOHN HARVARD'S JOURNAL

names of the freshman dormitories and the Houses, the nam es of professor­ships-it's almost entirely white males who are honored. The traditions are vis­ible for people to see, and it's difficult for people of color to think this is their institution when they come here. It doesn't seem (Q be.

One hopes that over time all minority students will feel it's their institution. But until our society makes greate r progress on racial issues, I suspect it's going (Q be hard to eliminate the sense of disparity.

Harvard launched its Affirmative Action program soon after you became general counsel. Have

those efforts achieved as much as you might have hoped?

We've done reasonably well, given the constraints. In administration, the num­ber of women a~d people of color in positions of responsibility is now fairly large. Thc faculty performance is much more uneven, primarily because the number of people with the credentials and other qualifications is relatively small. The number of minority docror­atcs in many fields is minute in compari­son with the demand that exists in uni-

"Congress tends to legislate for the whole country. It imposes the same rules on every

college and university."

versities throughout the country. We're doing better, however, on appointments of women.

One of the anomalies of our society is [hat the government pushes us, as a fed­eral contracror, ro hire more minorities on our faculty-but another part of the government has been trying to restrict minority scholarsh ips in universities. The problem of increasing the supply of minority facu lty won't be resolved unless there are special efforts such as minority scholarships. Even with such programs, it's going to be a long, slow process.

Does regulation from \Vashington

create problems in other ways? We haven't found a good balance on

what I would call the issue of account­ability. We receive large amounts of fed­eral funds-principally for research­and that leads to federal regulation. For example, we have certain requirements imposed upon us in respect to nondis­crimination, and it's hard to argue that an institution spend ing federal funds should be frce to discriminate. There are, on the other hand, tremendous costs imposed by the extraordinary amount of regulation. Federal requirements saddle us with a lot of paperwork, and the need to hire more administrators. There is both a dollar cost and the psy­chological cost of pushing paper. It's just more difficult (Q get things done. I think there is very little awareness of these costs in Washington. And there are areas where Congress regulates that I think are unnecessary and intrusive.

For example? Regulations in respect to the use of

alcohol on campus. They are unrealistic and have seriously disrupted the rela­tionships between proctors, tutors, and students.

Also, Congress tends to legislate for the whole country. It imposes the same rules on every college and university. One of the great strengths of American higher education has been its diversity, and the fact that institutions have been free (Q practice their own theories of education, their own philosophies. Fed­eral regulation tends to make us homo­geneous. I don't think that's a healthy development.

Private universities shou ld have some discretion and latitude on how (Q ap­proach educational issues. Moreover, once you get into federal regulation, there's undoubtedly going to be litiga­tion-dollar costs, involvement of judges in the running of universities, deciding issues for universities.

Is the recent antitrust investigation another example of overregulation?

The app lication of antitrust laws to financial aid programs cannot have any significant beneficial effect on the econ­omy, but it can interfere with accom­plishing educational and social objec­tives. What was attacked by the Justice Department was the agreement among Ivy League schools that all aid to stu­dents should be awarded on the basis of

MAY-JUNE 1992 59

need. \Ve were trying to be sure that financial aid dollars, which are limited, went where they were mOSt needed, to

try to ensure access to our institutions for a broad range of people from differ­ent social and economic backgrounds, to have a diverse, high-quality student body, and to see that aid was awarded as fairl y and rationally as possible. It was nOt a device to save money by offering less aid, because through [he so-called overlap process some students ended up getting more aid and some got less.

It's hard to see what society gains by preventing institutions from voluntarily deciding not to award merit scholarships. If some want to make merit awards, fine. If others want to agree not to, that should be permissible also.

\Vhat about the recent furor over indirect cost charges? Should universi­ties have made more of an effort to obtain clearer rules and guidelines?

There has been a lot of work between universities and the federal government in trying to shape [he guidelines. They are very, very difficult to write precisely. But I think the problem came less from imprecision of the guidelines than from other factors. Some egregious mistakes were made by universities, and some institutions may have been overaggres­sive in trying to recover funds under the regulations. As a resu lt it became politi­cally possib le to attack universities ' actions on a much broader front, and to use ambigu ities in the regulations in ways that put the universities in a bad light.

Do you see any hope of eliminating some of the problems of overregulation?

I'm pessimistic, because it will take a major rethinking of relationships. Regu­lation is seldom repealed. Layer upon layer is added. Too frequently in our society, if there is a problem, the ten­dency is to enact a law to deal with it. Until there is greate r awareness of the large COSts, that trend is not likely to be reversed.

So demand for university lawyers will not looguish.

One of the not very hidden COStS is the number of lawyers involved. I think lawyers are essential for universities. I wish it weren't so.

The body of law that's potentially applicable must be daunting.

Any university lawyer who claims he

60 H ARVARD MAGAZINE

or she always provides advice with a high degree of certainty of complying with all applicable laws and regulations is not speaking the truth.

~WOrds ofwisdomwoukl you

impart to your successor as gen­em! COW1SCI?

I think questions of process will con­tinue to be important. In a number of areas-be it scientific misconduct or other form s of academic misconduct, sexual harassment, a va riety of disci­plinary matters-we are still working toward better procedures to reach good decisions. Harvard, I think, has been a leader in many of these areas, but our processes are very time-consuming and qu ite expensive, though they have the strong virtue of reaching good results in most cases. We have to try to find better ways to handle these problems.

Too often, I think, lawyers such as myself have replicated criminal laws or other forms of judicial process that have become cumbersome in the outside world and are increasingly cumbersome within the university.

There's also a wide range of addition­al issues involving institutional values, objectives, and profess ional standards­what should Harvard be doing, how should Harvard go about it-that will need to be addressed in coming years. We have made a good beginning in looking at these questions-new con­flict-of-interest rules are a prime exam­pic-but changes, such as new technol­ogy and "deferred maintenance," in this area mean we will need to continue to focus on values and standards.

Are incidents of sexual harassment, acquaintance rape t and acts of physical violence on the upswing today?

I f you put aside, for the moment, sexu­al issues among students, I think Harvard has been in a remarkably steady state in respect to crimes of violence-assaults, robberies, and so on. We have a reason­ably safe community, considering that we're in an urban environment.

Issues of sexual violence among Stu· dents arc very difficult. There probably are more problems than there were sev· eml decades ago-because of changes in mores in our society, and because stu­dents of different sexes now live in much closer proximity, and relations among them are different than they were in the

fifties and sixties. There's also a much greater willingness to report and deal with the issue.

At the same time, when you mention issues of importance to my successor or others around here, I don't think any university has found a good way of adju­dicating date rapc allegations. They are very, very tough to handle. We're ill equipped to deal internally with serious criminal allegations, and that 's what a date rape allegation is. We have had a policy of encouraging victims of sexual violence to press charges internally if they want, but also to speak with the public authorities. Because if there is a mpe at Harvard, be it date rape or other­wise, it is a serious offense under the civil laws and should be treated as such.

However, there's a lot we can do on the educational side to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

\Wint about scientific misconduct? We had a bad situation in the early

eighties. We did not handle a very seri-ous set of allegations well. I think we've done a first-rate job ever since, at tre­mendous cost. A complicated scientific misconduct investigation can COSt hun­dreds of thousands of dollars in the time of faculty, staff, and lawyers to investi­gate and find the facts. But integri ty in science is a core value. Unless we face up to unpleasant allegations and get at the truth, we wi ll lose our purpose-and the confidence of society.

H ow about the issue that brought you back to Harvard in 1969-University governance?

The focus has changed. When I start­ed, we were searching for ways to

rebuild trust, to provide consultative mechanisms, and to make certain our procedures were fa ir. Today the principal aims involve finding ways to further the president's objective of bringing the University closer together academically and administratively, to make our gover­nance mechanisms more efficient, and to create a greater sense of shared values and objectives throughout the Universi­ty community.

Harvard houses tremendous talent and energy. The challenge is to govern the University in a way that puts this extraordinary resource to best use-and maintains the confidence of our con­stituents and our society.