Harvard Professor Critiques University While Departing
A long-time history professor from Harvard University, who spent four decades teaching there, has announced his departure, leaving a bold critique of the institution behind. In an article for Compact Magazine, James Hankins explained that he chose to leave in 2021 due to the chaotic environment prompted by social movements and COVID-19 restrictions but completed his four-year severance contract, which just concluded.
“After almost two years of strict COVID-19 protocols monitored by the university,” Hankins remarked, “it felt like emergency governance reflecting a nationwide uncritical acceptance of ‘science’ that intruded on private life when endorsed by public authority.”
He also criticized the university’s requirement for professors to wear masks and use Zoom for seminars, expressing his belief that these conditions clash with effective education.
Hankins reflected on the unrest during the summer of 2020 following George Floyd’s death, mentioning that he expected the university’s response would be mere “virtue signaling.” Instead, he indicated that the administration’s policies began to favor discrimination against white male applicants in graduate admissions.
He detailed a particular incident from fall 2020 when a qualified candidate—who would typically shine among applicants—was dismissed by the admissions committee with a remark that admitting a white male was “not going to happen this year.”
Furthermore, he highlighted a brilliant Harvard undergraduate who had one of the highest GPAs in his class but was turned away by all graduate programs he applied to at Harvard, merely because he was a white male. Hankins found that similar patterns showed up in multiple other institutions, suggesting a widespread, unspoken rule.
A spokesperson for Harvard responded, asserting that admissions processes are determined by faculty at the departmental level, which, in Hankins’ view, doesn’t address the criticisms he raised. His critique extended beyond admissions; he claimed the history department had suffered a decline in academic rigor, largely influenced by activist pressures, leading to a diminished focus on Western history.
Reflecting on changes dating back to the 1990s, Hankins noted that Harvard had once upheld a “two-book standard” for senior appointments, meaning prospective hires were expected to have published two significant works. However, he argued that this standard eroded as the university succumbed to pressures to hire more women faculty, initiated by advocates claiming parity in appointments was essential.
He remarked that this push had serious ramifications on the history department, as it resulted in a decrease in academic standards. “At that point, the qualifications for hiring had to be adjusted in the name of equality,” he argued, suggesting that those opposing these changes were labeled unfairly.
As courses often shifted focus from Western to “global civilization,” many educators voiced concern, yet Hankins found a short-lived opportunity to teach about Western civilization before it vanished in the early 2000s. He observed that the balance of junior faculty members shifted rapidly, reflecting comparisons to legislative spending cuts.
Hankins articulated his view that promotions of less-qualified faculty became routine, contributing to a trend he labeled as left-leaning and detrimental to the understanding of Western history. He noted how contemporary historians often adopt a narrative that positions Western history unfavorably against non-Western narratives.
Despite voicing these serious concerns, Hankins expressed skepticism about the future of reform in elite institutions, suggesting instead that the real hope lies in developing an educational system detached from the dysfunction he perceives in the current structure.
