Algorithms, Approximation, and Learning in Market and Mechanism Design at SLMath Berkeley this week--Monday

 

Algorithms, Approximation, and Learning in Market and Mechanism Design

Nov

06

2023

Monday

 08:45 am - 09:00 am

Welcome

 09:00 am - 09:45 am

Kidney Exchange: Within and Across Borders

Alvin Roth, Stanford University

 09:45 am - 10:30 am

Stable Matching as Transportation

Federico Echenique, University of California, Berkeley

 10:30 am - 11:00 am

Break

 11:00 am - 11:45 am

Couples can be Tractable: New Algorithms and Hardness Results for the Hospitals / Residents Problem with Couples

David Manlove, University of Glasgow

 11:45 am - 12:30 pm

Advancing Stability in Matching Markets: Multi-Modal Preferences and Beyond

Jiehua Chen, Technische Universität Wien

 12:30 pm - 02:30 pm

Poster Sessions and Lunch

 02:30 pm - 03:15 pm

Old and New Results on Matching, Assignment, and Selection Problems

Jay Sethuraman, Columbia University

 03:15 pm - 03:45 pm

Afternoon Tea

 03:45 pm - 05:00 pm

Matching Markets without Money: Closing Panel

Deceased organ donation in the Economist (article and letter to the editor)

 Here's a recent article on deceased organ donation, in The Economist, followed by a letter to the editor from Alex Chan and me.

In America, lots of usable organs go unrecovered or get binned. That is a missed opportunity to save thousands of lives

"More than four-fifths of all donated organs and two-thirds of kidneys come from dead people (who must die in hospital); living donors can give only a kidney or parts of a lung or liver. Whereas some countries, such as England, France and Spain, have an opt-out model, in America donors must register or their families must agree. Persuading them will always be hard: Dr Karp’s hospital gets consent from about half of potential donors.

...

"Responsibility lies partly with some of the 56 nonprofit Organ Procurement Organisations (opos), like LiveOnNY, that do the legwork. Brianna Doby, a researcher and consultant, advised Arkansas’s opo in 2021 and was astounded to learn that most calls about potential donors went unanswered outside the nine-to-five workday and at weekends. Other opos, by contrast, sent staff to hospitals within an hour of an alert about a prospective donor.

...

"Yet unrecovered organs are not the only reason America could do more transplants. A surprising number of organs from deceased donors end up in the rubbish: more than a quarter of kidneys and a tenth of livers last year.

...

"Hospitals are often risk-averse, too. Discard rates are higher for organs of lower quality.

...

"For elderly recipients, getting older or otherwise risky kidneys generally means better odds of survival than staying on dialysis. But hospitals dislike using them for two reasons. First, they can lead to more complications and thus require more resources, eating into margins. Second, if the recipient dies soon after the transplant, hospitals suffer—a key measure used to evaluate them is the survival rate of recipients a year after transplant. According to Robert Cannon, a liver-transplant surgeon at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, hospitals succeed by being excessively cautious and keeping patients with worse prospects off waiting lists."

#########

And here's our followup letter to the editor, published November 2:

Organ-donation economics

"More than 110,000 Americans are waiting for an organ transplant and over 5,000 died waiting for an organ in 2019. Close to 6,000 recovered organs were discarded. “Wasted organs” (September 23rd) correctly pointed out that the responsibility lies in part with non-profit Organ Procurement Organisations and in part with the excessive caution exercised by transplant centres when deciding who to conduct transplants for and which kidneys to use.

"Numerous initiatives in Congress, and more proposed by various non-governmental agencies, such as the Federation of American Scientists and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, among others, have been focused on tweaking how the performance of organ procurers and transplant centres should be measured while keeping in place the system that put us in today’s quagmire. As we indicate in our recent paper (conditionally accepted at the Journal of Political Economy), such approaches that keep regulations fragmented are bound to be inefficient, given that the incentives and opportunities facing organ procurers and transplant centres are intertwined.

"We show that “holistic regulation”, which aligns the interests of organ procurers and transplant centres by rewarding them based on the health outcomes of the entire patient pool, can get at the root of the problem. This approach also leads to more organ recoveries while increasing the use of organs for sicker patients who otherwise would be left without a transplant.

"In the end increasing access to kidney transplantation will require the improvement of the entire supply chain of organs. This means boosting donor registrations and donor recoveries from the deceased. It also means increasing living donations, and co-ordinating donations through mechanisms like paired kidney donations and deceased-donor-initiated kidney- exchange chains.

Alex Chan, Assistant professor of business administration, Harvard University

Alvin E. Roth, Professor of economics, Stanford University

####

And here's the paper referred to in our letter, on Alex's website:

Regulation of Organ Transplantation and Procurement: A Market Design Lab Experiment, by Alex Chan and Alvin E. Roth

Abstract: "We conduct a lab experiment that shows current rules regulating transplant centers (TCs) and organ procurement organizations (OPOs) create perverse incentives that inefficiently reduce both organ recovery and beneficial transplantations. We model the decision environment with a 2-player multi-round game between an OPO and a TC. In the condition that simulates current rules, OPOs recover only highest-quality kidneys and forgo valuable recovery opportunities, and TCs decline some beneficial transplants and perform some unnecessary transplants. Alternative regulations that reward TCs and OPOs together for health outcomes in their entire patient pool lead to behaviors that increase organ recovery and appropriate transplants."

The EU proposes strengthening bans on compensating donors of Substances of Human Origin (SoHOs)--op-ed in VoxEU by Ockenfels and Roth

 The EU has proposed a strengthening of European prohibitions against compensating donors of "substances of human origin" (SoHOs).  Here's an op-ed in VoxEU considering how that might effect their supply.

Consequences of unpaid blood plasma donations, by Axel Ockenfels and  Alvin Roth / 4 Nov 2023

"The European Commission is considering new ways to regulate the ‘substances of human origin’ – including blood, plasma, and cells – used in medical procedures from transfusions and transplants to assisted reproduction. This column argues that such legislation jeopardises the interests of both donors and recipients. While sympathetic to the intentions behind the proposals – which aim to ensure that donations are voluntary and to protect financially disadvantaged donors – the authors believe such rules overlook the effects on donors, on the supply of such substances, and on the health of those who need them.

"Largely unnoticed by the general public, the European Commission and the European Parliament’s Health Committee have been drafting new rules to regulate the use of ‘substances of human origin’ (SoHO), such as blood, plasma, and cells (Iraola 2023, European Parliament 2023). These substances are used in life-saving medical procedures ranging from transfusions and transplants to assisted reproduction. Central to this legislative initiative is the proposal to ban financial incentives for donors and to limit compensation to covering the actual costs incurred during the donation process. The goal is to ensure that donations are voluntary and altruistic. The initiative aims to protect the financially disadvantaged from undue pressure and prevent potential misrepresentation of medical histories due to financial incentives. While the intention is noble, the proposal warrants critical analysis as it may overlook the detrimental effects on donors themselves, on the overall supply of SoHOs, and consequently on the health, wellbeing, and even the lives of those who need them. We illustrate this in the context of blood plasma donation.

"Over half a century ago, Richard Titmuss (1971) conjectured that financial incentives to donate blood could compromise the safety and overall supply. This made sense in the 1970s, when tests for pathogens in the blood supply were not yet developed. But Titmuss’ conjecture permeated policy guidelines worldwide, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Although more evidence is needed, a review published by Science (Lacetera et al. 2013; see also Macis and Lacetera 2008, Bowles 2016), which looked at the evidence available more than 40 years after Titmuss’ conjecture, concluded that the statistically sound, field-based evidence from large, representative samples is largely inconsistent with his predictions.

"Getting the facts right is important because, at least where blood plasma is concerned, the volunteer system has failed to meet demand (Slonim et al. 2014). There is a severe and growing global shortage of blood plasma. While many countries are unwilling to pay donors at home, they are willing to pay for blood plasma obtained from donors abroad. The US, which allows payment to plasma donors, is responsible for 70% of the world’s plasma supply and is also a major supplier to the EU, which must import about 40% of its total plasma needs. Together with other countries that allow some form of payment for plasma donations – including EU member states Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic – they account for nearly 90% of the total supply (Jaworski 2020, 2023). Based on what we know from controlled studies and from experiences with previous policy changes, a ban on paid donation in the EU will reduce the amount of plasma supplied from EU members, prompting further attempts to circumvent the regulation by importing even more plasma from countries where payment is legal. At the same time, a ban will contribute to the global shortage of plasma, further driving up the price and making it increasingly unaffordable for low-income countries (Asamoah-Akuoko et al. 2023). In the 1970s, it may have been reasonable to worry that encouraging paid donation would lead to a flow of blood plasma from poor nations to rich ones. That is not what we are in fact seeing. Instead, plasma supplies from the US and Europe save lives around the world.

"In other areas, society generally recognises the need for fair compensation for services provided, especially when they involve discomfort or risk. After all, it is no fun having someone stick a needle in your arm to extract blood. This consensus cuts across a range of services and professions – including nursing, firefighting, and mining – occupations, most people would agree, that should be well rewarded for the risk involved and value to society. To rely solely on altruism in such areas would be exploitative and would eventually lead to a collapse in provision. Indeed, to protect individuals from exploitation, labour laws around the world have introduced minimum compensation requirements rather than caps on earnings. In addition, payment bans on donors, even if they’re intended to protect against undue inducements, raise concerns about price-fixing to the benefit of non-donors in the blood plasma market. In a related case, limits on payment to egg donors have been successfully challenged in US courts. 1

"In addition, policy decisions affecting vital supplies such as blood plasma should be based on a broad discourse that includes diverse perspectives and motivations. Ethical judgements often differ, both among experts and between professionals and the general public, so communication is essential (e.g. Roth and Wang 2020, Ambuehl and Ockenfels 2017). Payment for blood plasma donations is an example. We (the authors of this article) are from the US and Germany, countries that currently allow payment for blood plasma donations while most other countries prohibit payment. On the other hand, prostitution is legal in Germany but surrogacy is not, while the opposite is true in most of the US. And while Germany currently prohibits kidney exchange on ethical grounds, other countries – including the US, the UK, and the Netherlands – operate some of the largest kidney exchanges in the world and promote kidney exchange on ethical grounds.

"The general public does not always share the sentiments that health professionals find important (e.g. Lacetera et al. 2016). This tendency is probably not due to professionals being less cognitively biased. In all areas where the question has been studied, experts such as financial advisers, CEOs, elected politicians, economists, philosophers, and doctors are just as susceptible to cognitive bias as ordinary citizens (e.g. Ambuehl et al. 2021, 2023). Recognising the similarities and differences between professional and popular judgements, and how ethical judgements are affected by geography, time, and context, allows for a more constructive and effective search for the best policy options.

"In our view, the dangers of undersupply of critical medical substances, of inequitable compensation (particularly for financially disadvantaged donors), and of circumvention of regulation by sourcing these substances from other countries (where the EU has no influence on the rules for monitoring compensation to protect donors from harm) are at least as significant as those arising from overpayment. Carefully designed transactional mechanisms may also help to respect ethical boundaries while ensuring adequate supply. Advances in medical and communication technologies, such as viral detection tests, can effectively monitor blood quality and ensure the safety and integrity of the entire donation process – including the deferral of high-risk donors and those for whom donating is a risk to their health – without prohibiting payment to donors. Even if it is ultimately decided that payments should be banned, there are innovations in the rules governing blood donation that have been proposed, implemented, and tested that would improve the balance between blood supply and demand within the constraints of volunteerism; non-price signals, for instance, can work within current social and ethical constraints.

"As the EU deliberates on this legislation, it is imperative to adopt a balanced, empirically sound, and research-backed approach that considers multiple effects and promotes policies to safeguard the interests of both donors and recipients.

References

Asamoah-Akuoko, L et al. (2023), “The status of blood supply in sub-Saharan Africa: barriers and health impact”, The Lancet 402(10398): 274–76.

Ambuehl, S and A Ockenfels (2017), “The ethics of incentivizing the uninformed: A vignette study”, American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings 107(5), 91–95.

Ambuehl, S, A Ockenfels and A E Roth (2020), “Payment in challenge studies from an economics perspective”, Journal of Medical Ethics 46(12): 831–32.

Ambuehl, S, S Blesse, P Doerrenberg, C Feldhaus and A Ockenfels (2023), “Politicians’ social welfare criteria: An experiment with German legislators”, University of Cologne, working paper.

Ambuehl, S, D Bernheim and A Ockenfels (2021), “What motivates paternalism? An experimental study”, American Economic Review 111(3): 787–830.

Bowles S (2016), “Moral sentiments and material interests: When economic incentives crowd in social preferences”, VoxEU.org, 26 May.

European Parliament (2023), “Donations and treatments: new safety rules for substances of human origin”, press release, 12 September.

Iraola, M (2023), “EU Parliament approves text on donation of substances of human origin”, Euractiv, 12 September.

Jaworski, P (2020), “Bloody well pay them. The case for Voluntary Remunerated Plasma Collections”, Niskanen Center.

Jaworski, P (2023), “The E.U. Doesn’t Want People To Sell Their Plasma, and It Doesn’t Care How Many Patients That Hurts”, Reason, 20 September.

Lacetera, N, M Macis and R Slonim (2013), “Economic rewards to motivate blood donation”, Science 340(6135): 927–28.

Lacetera, N, M Macis and J Elias (2016), “Understanding moral repugnance: The case of the US market for kidney transplantation”, VoxEU.org, 15 October.

Macis M and N Lacetera (2008), “Incentives for altruism? The case of blood donations”, VoxEU.org, 4 November.

Roth, A E (2007), “Repugnance as a constraint on markets”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 37–58.

Roth A E and S W Wang (2020), “Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets”, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117(33): 19792–8.

Slonim R, C Wang and E Garbarino (2014), “The Market for Blood”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(2): 177–96.

Titmuss, R M (1971), The Gift Relationship, London: Allen and Unwin.

Footnotes: 1. Kamakahi v. American Society for Reproductive Medicine, US District Court Northern District of California, Case 3:11-cv-01781-JCS, 2016.

Jobs for economists, so far this year

Here's a preliminary AEA memo on the job market.

"To: Members of the American Economic Association 

From: AEA Committee on the Job Market: John Cawley (chair), Matt Gentzkow, Brooke Helppie-McFall, Al Roth, Peter Rousseau, and Wendy Stock

Date: October 26, 2023

Re: JOE job openings by sector, 2023 versus the past 4 years

This memo reports the cumulative number of unique job openings on Job Openings for Economists (JOE), by sector and week, compared to the same week in recent years.

...

"Figure 1 (on p. 3) shows the total number of job openings in 2023, compared to recent years. As of the end of week 41, there have been 2,006 jobs listed on JOE since the beginning of 2023, which is 13.2% lower than at the same time in 2022, roughly the same (-0.10% lower) as in 2021, 51.3% higher than this time in 2020 (the worst COVID year), and 13.2% lower than 2019, the last pre-COVID year. 

"Our committee cautions that the largest number of listings in JOE occur in October and November, so by early December we’ll have a much better sense of the job market for Ph.D. economists.

...

"Further updates regarding the job market for Ph.D. economists will be posted to the Committee’s

webpage.

Jury Finds Realtors Conspired to Keep Commissions High

 One of the puzzles of the internet age, when you can take house tours remotely, and see house listings online, is how real estate agents have managed to keep their dominant position in the residential real estate market, including commissions that have remained roughly constant as a percentage of sale price, as sale prices have risen.  There's certainly room for economists to investigate the contract forms that are widespread in the industry.

In the meantime, the WSJ has the story from the legal front:

Jury Finds Realtors Conspired to Keep Commissions High. The National Association of Realtors and big residential brokerages were found liable for about $1.8 billion in damages  By Laura Kusisto, Nicole Friedman, and Shannon Najmabadi

"A federal jury on Tuesday found the National Association of Realtors and large residential brokerages liable for about $1.8 billion in damages after determining they conspired to keep commissions for home sales artificially high.

The verdict could lead to industrywide upheaval by changing decades-old rules that have helped lock in commission rates even as home prices have skyrocketed—which has allowed real-estate agents to collect ever-larger sums. It comes in the first of two antitrust lawsuits arguing that unlawful industry practices have left consumers unable to lower their costs even though internet-era innovations have allowed many buyers to find homes themselves online.

Announced in a packed Kansas City, Mo., courtroom, the verdict came after just a few hours of jury deliberations. The case was brought by home sellers in several Midwestern states."

The broken market for antibiotics, continued

 Not only is the market for new antibiotics broken, companies that explore them are going broke.

Here's a story from the WSJ:

The World Needs New Antibiotics. The Problem Is, No One Can Make Them Profitably.  New drugs to defeat ‘superbug’ bacteria aren’t reaching patients   By Dominique Mosbergen

"The push for antibiotics to fight fast-evolving superbugs is snagging on a broken business model. 

"Six startups have won Food and Drug Administration approval for new antibiotics since 2017. All have filed for bankruptcy, been acquired or are shutting down. About 80% of the 300 scientists who worked at the companies have abandoned antibiotic development, according to Kevin Outterson, executive director of CARB-X, a government-funded group promoting research in the field.  

...

"The reason, the companies say: They couldn’t sell their lifesaving products because the system that produces drugs for cancer and Alzheimer’s disease—which counts on companies selling enough of a new treatment or charging a high enough price to reward investors and make a profit—isn’t working for antibiotics. 

New antibiotics are meant to be used rarely and briefly to defeat the most pernicious infections so bacteria don’t develop resistance to them too quickly. Companies have priced them at 100 times as much as the generic antibiotics doctors have prescribed for decades that cost a few dollars per dose. Most have sold poorly. 

...

"Most large pharmaceutical companies aren’t developing antibiotics. Several have closed or divested antibiotic development programs. “There’s no profitability,” Hyun said. "

US halts export of most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days.

One of many things that makes the U.S. unusual is the Constitutionally protected status of gun ownership and gun sales here.  Guns being guns, this comes with some built in negative externalities that we struggle to contain.  But we also export guns, to legal markets in other countries (as well as sometimes to illegal ones)  and this can impose negative externalities elsewhere.   Apparently the Commerce Department is reviewing the situation.

 The Guardian has the story (from the Reuters news service):

US halts export of most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days. Commerce department cites foreign policy interests and says it will review ‘risk of firearms’ diverted’ to ‘violate human rights’

"The US has stopped issuing export licenses for most civilian firearms and ammunition for 90 days for all non-governmental users, the commerce department said on Friday, citing national security and foreign policy interests.

"The commerce department did not provide further details for the pause, which also includes shotguns and optical sights, but said an urgent review will assess the “risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities”.

##########

Earlier:

Sunday, January 22, 2023

The trade in guns and drugs on the Mexico-US border

Simple Proofs of Important Results in Market Design-- (video of my talk at Berkeley's Simons Institute)

Here's a video of the talk I gave on Friday at the Simons Institute, on simple proofs of important theorems about matching, that have had impact on practical market design.

Transcript withholding by colleges and universities to be regulated

 Inside Higher Ed has the story:

U.S. Bans Most Withholding of Transcripts. The Education Department strengthens its oversight of institutions with a sweeping set of rules finalized this week.  By  Katherine Knott

"Afederal policy change could give thousands of students access to transcripts and academic credits their colleges have withheld because they owed the institutions money. The new rule, part of a broad package of regulations the U.S. Education Department unveiled Tuesday, could amount to a national ban on the practice of transcript withholding, experts say.

Institutions sometimes withhold transcripts to force a student to pay a balance on their account. Without their transcripts, students often can’t continue their education elsewhere without starting over, and they cannot apply for certain jobs. The practice has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, with dozens of states enacting their own bans.

The department’s new rule is broader than what the agency proposed in May and would prevent a college or university from withholding a student’s transcript for terms in which a student received federal financial aid and paid off the balance for the term. Research from Ithaka S+R, a research and consulting group, has shown that about six million students have what are called stranded credits because of transcript withholding.

...

“For a large number of students and former students who are impacted by transcript withholding, this should solve a significant portion of the problem,” said Edward Conroy, a policy fellow at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “Because in most cases, even when former students owe larger debts, nobody owes a debt for the entirety of their degree. It might be for their last semester or something like that.”

Magic mushrooms as therapy

 The legal use of psychedelics in therapy is growing.

The NYT has the story:

A New Era of Psychedelics in Oregon. The state has pioneered a therapeutic market for psychedelic mushrooms. Researchers are watching with a mix of excitement and unease.  By Mike Baker

"Stigmatized in law and medicine for the past half-century, psychedelics are in the midst of a sudden revival, with a growing body of research suggesting that the mind-altering compounds could upend psychiatric care. Governments in several places have cautiously started to open access, and as Oregon voters approved a broad drug decriminalization plan in 2020, they also backed an initiative to allow the use of mushrooms as therapy.

...

"For those who have long worked on psychedelics research, the sudden expansion in access in Oregon and Colorado, along with cities like Denver, Detroit, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., have prompted a mix of elation and trepidation. Oregon has settled on a middle-of-the-road approach, requiring neither a doctor’s supervision nor a specific medical diagnosis, but providing for strict oversight of supply and use.

...

"While some form of legalized marijuana is authorized in all but 12 states, creating a huge, multi-billion-dollar industry, the psilocybin market remains small, with an uncertain financial outlook for those entering it. Only five businesses are approved to manufacture the therapeutic-use fungi in Oregon, with 13 sites approved to host dosing sessions.

...

"Officials in other states are watching what happens in Oregon. Voters in Colorado approved a measure last year to decriminalize psilocybin and to set the state on the path to a legal therapeutic market. In other states, including Texas, lawmakers have authorized studies of psilocybin for treating ailments such as PTSD. The F.D.A. has granted the drug “breakthrough therapy” status, which allows for expedited review of substances that have demonstrated substantial promise.

"But there is uncertainty about the best path forward. California lawmakers approved a bill this year to decriminalize several hallucinogens, but Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed the measure, saying the state needs to first set up regulated treatment guidelines. The American Psychiatric Association has urged caution, saying treatments should be limited to research studies for now."

HBS Dean Datar's statement about Hamas, Gaza, and antisemitism on campus

During World War II, many anti-Nazi people of good will  might have been disturbed by the firebombing of Dresden (sometimes said to be in retaliation for the firebombing of Coventry).   But I imagine that it would have been clear that their opposition to bombing the city of Dresden was not in any way support for the Nazi regime and its aims in the war and in the Holocaust. 

One of the disturbing things about current campus protests in support of the dire situation in which civilians find themselves in Gaza is that they often seem to be expressed as support for Hamas, and the goals that Hamas has so clearly expressed in words and in actions, to kill all the Jews living in Israel and perhaps elsewhere. Indeed the celebrations of Hamas began before Israel began to counterattack, while Hamas was still killing civilians in Israel.

Another disturbing thing is that American university leaders, who have often made clear moral statements about other matters, seem to subscribe to the view that regarding Hamas, 'there are fine people on both sides.'

I don't doubt that some demonstrators are supporting Hamas out of ignorance or indifference to its goals and its atrocities, not to mention of its mis-governance of Gaza.  But others are clearly anti-Semitic, and support genocide against Jews.

Harvard Business School's dean, Srikant Datar, has (in contrast to Harvard's top leadership), issued a statement that seems to me to include both recognition of the tangled politics of the Middle East, and a distinction between political opinions and hate speech. (Universities, which aren't government bodies, have some flexibility about regulating speech on campus, and don't universally protect hate speech, e.g. in general swastikas and nooses are condemned, even though the First Amendment to the Constitution limits what government bodies in the U.S. can do to curtail even hate speech.)

Here is Dean Datar's nuanced letter (that still manages to have relevant content):

Our Values 24 Oct 2023

 "Dear members of the HBS community,

Two weeks have passed since the horrific attack by Hamas on Israeli citizens. As I noted in my letter on October 10^th, terrorist actions against civilians are not only unconscionable, they are inconsistent with our most fundamental values; as humans, we must condemn them. The atrocities carried out were heinous and they have left the Israeli and Jewish members of our community, and all of us, reeling.

The ensuing days also have been deeply unsettling as the conflict has escalated in the Middle East. Shock has given way to deep pain and grief, sadness, and anger. Many in our community are afraid: uncertain whether they are welcome at Harvard Business School, unsure how to engage in class discussions, and even feeling physically unsafe for themselves and their loved ones. In the U.S. and around the world, examples of antisemitic hate speech, graffiti, vandalism, riots, and fire bombings, as well as violence such as the stabbing of a young Palestinian boy and his mother in Chicago, have only heightened this fear. Other individuals are afraid in a different way: that what they say might offend or make people angry, that they don’t understand the history behind the current events, and that if they try to offer support or speak up, they will get it wrong and be seen as insensitive or even complicit.

Moreover, the pro-Palestinian demonstration that crossed from Cambridge onto our campus last Wednesday, which included a troubling confrontation between one of our MBA students and a subset of the protestors, has left many of our students shaken. Reports have been filed with HUPD and the FBI, the facts are being evaluated, and it will be some time before we learn the results of an investigation. But the protest has raised questions about how we address freedom of speech, hateful speech that goes against our community values, and security and safety for everyone at the School.

In this context, I am reaching out to all members of the Harvard Business School community to discuss these and other issues that are affecting our School and campus. This is my purview as Dean and this is my responsibility to each of you.

Our Values

“And Thinking” is the idea that we can go beyond traditional either/or dichotomies and think expansively about the challenges we face. Hearing the pain and anguish so many of you have shared, I have debated whether to apply And Thinking to the moment we are facing now—it may be perceived as being too equivocal, or the wrong moment. But, not saying And has perhaps kept me from saying things that are important to say.

Let me start, then, by acknowledging that antisemitism exists on our campus, and stating unequivocally there is no place for it here. We have a strong and deeply valued Jewish and Israeli community at Harvard Business School. In recent days, many have shared with me their anger at Harvard’s history of antisemitism and their dismay that it continues today. We can and must start by making a difference at HBS. Antisemitism is insidious and we simply cannot allow it to persist in any form. We must ensure that our Jewish and Israeli faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel not only safe and supported by our community, but also a deep sense of belonging and understanding.

And, let me say emphatically that Islamophobia exists at HBS, and has no place on our campus either. We have a strong and deeply valued Muslim and Arab community. We must ensure that these faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel safe, supported, and at home at our School; Islamophobia, too, is insidious and cannot be allowed. We must be a place that embraces diversity—of culture, of religion, of ethnicity, and of every other aspect of identity and experience. This is what enriches our classroom discussions and the learning environment, and this principle is codified in our community value of respect for the rights, differences, and dignity of others. We must ensure we live up to that value.

Let me also state that I condemn violence and hateful speech, words, and actions like doxing that damage the fabric of our community, detract from learning, and can incite violence. Some protestors at Wednesday’s demonstration held banners and chanted words widely understood to call for the end of Israel—inciting the eradication of a nation and its people. There is no place for hateful speech on our campus. It violates our community values—values that hold all of us to a higher standard than simply protecting free speech.

And, we must enable robust dialogue and the expression of divergent points of view. At a University whose motto is Veritas, we should strive to ensure that our arguments and claims are true and rooted in fact. But we must be okay with being uncomfortable, even offended, at times. We must allow peaceful protests, demonstrations, and gatherings, and I will defend the right to voice dissent without hate. This is a fundamental principle of a strong democratic society that respects civil liberties.

I believe that we can do more than one thing at the same time—and that we must do so now, when there are many values we must uphold. I also believe that, by doing so, we can come together as a community and deliver on the promise we make to the students who come to our School: an engaging learning experience, and an education in business, management, and leadership. Yet we must also create the space necessary to grieve, to console, to express, to understand, to challenge, to debate, and to inspire.

Action

It also is a time for action. Let me outline efforts either underway or planned to launch this week.

First, we will undertake an effort to understand the experience of antisemitism at Harvard Business School—investigating more deeply the concern I have heard that noxious elements of antisemitism persist on our campus and in our classrooms. After this assessment—which will engage faculty, staff, students, and alumni—is complete, we then will develop an action plan outlining specific steps we might take to address antisemitism at the School. The lessons we learn from this effort will help us examine other hidden forms of discrimination that persist at HBS, including Islamophobia. Throughout my time as Dean, I have expressed my aspiration that Harvard Business School be a place where every individual is able to be the best they can be. It pains me to acknowledge this is not our current reality, and so we must take on this work with energy and urgency. Toward that end, we will announce the leadership and composition of this group before the end of the month.

Second, I am mobilizing small groups of faculty, staff, and students to revisit and clarify aspects of our campus culture. One group will look at our classroom norms and how we continue to deliver our planned curriculum while providing opportunities to discuss and deepen understanding of the conflict. A second group will examine demonstration guidelines, ensuring we protect and balance our community values, rights of expression, restrictions on hateful speech, and the safety and well-being of every member of our community. This will necessitate developing a deeper and shared understanding of hate speech: what constitutes it, how we define it, and the repercussions for members of our community who use it. Both groups will be asked to develop recommendations we can implement quickly and modify as circumstances change.

Finally, we are taking additional steps to ensure the safety and well-being of our community. We have a sophisticated security plan as our baseline, including a state-of-the-art Security Operations Center that is staffed 24/7 and the ability, for example, to lock down a classroom, an office, or a building almost instantly. Campus security can be reached, night and day, by calling 617.495.5577, and HUPD is available at 617.495.1212 if any individual senses a threat to their personal safety. Both HUPD and HBS have increased patrols by officers and other security personnel. And our Operations team works daily with HUPD, local, state, and federal agencies to evaluate threat levels and to support events and campus activities in a coordinated way. While no credible threat has yet been identified, we are considering additional steps such as requiring ID-card access to more buildings on campus.

Additionally, two Harvard-wide Community Spaces—one to support Jewish, and one to support Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian community members—have been launched which aim to foster a sense of belonging through dialogue with peers. Gatherings have been scheduled through the end of the month and additional details can be found here in the Quick Links. The University also has published a Guide for Protecting Against Online Abuse and Harassment, which can be found here. We will work closely and individually with any student, faculty member, or staff member who comes to us with concern, and are open to other suggestions and ideas. We want our campus to be safe, secure, and vibrant.

Closing Thoughts

We must find a way forward. Why? Because if we can’t do it here—drawing on the strength of our community, the knowledge and experience among us, and the resources of Harvard University—then where else can this work be done? I recognize the grief and pain of so many at the School. I feel it myself. I also firmly believe that by educating leaders who make a difference in the world, and by learning and working together across our differences, we can contribute to peace and prosperity around the globe. Now is the time to recommit to our mission with a sense of urgency and purpose."

########

Earlier related posts:

Sunday, October 15, 2023

Hamas, Gaza and American universities: more letters, and two speeches

Thursday, October 12, 2023

Thinking locally about Hamas, and murderous antisemitism, on college campuses