The Uncomfortable Truth: How a Harvard Historian’s Slavery Research Sparked Controversy
In 2019, Harvard University made headlines when it publicly acknowledged its historical ties to slavery, joining a growing list of elite institutions confronting their pasts. But the story behind that acknowledgment is far more complicated—and contentious—than a simple admission. At the center of the controversy is Lucas Mason-Brown, a researcher hired by Harvard to dig into its archives. What he uncovered, he claims, cost him his job.
Mason-Brown, a historian specializing in colonial America, was initially brought on to expand Harvard’s understanding of its connections to slavery. The project seemed straightforward: comb through centuries-old records to identify enslaved individuals linked to the university or its early benefactors. But as Mason-Brown and his team began unearthing documents, the scale of Harvard’s entanglement became startling.
“We found too many slaves,” Mason-Brown says bluntly. “Not just one or two names, but dozens tied directly to donors, faculty, and even campus infrastructure.” For example, the university’s first endowed professorship in 1721 was funded by a fortune built on slave-traded commodities. Early campus buildings, including Massachusetts Hall—still in use today—were constructed using labor from enslaved people. Even Harvard’s famed medical school relied on bodies of enslaved individuals for anatomical studies in the 18th century.
But as Mason-Brown compiled these findings, tensions flared. He alleges that Harvard administrators grew uneasy with the project’s direction. “They wanted a sanitized version of history,” he claims. “When we pushed to name specific families and quantify the economic benefits Harvard gained from slavery, there was resistance.”
By 2022, the university had quietly disbanded Mason-Brown’s team. Harvard officials cited “budgetary constraints” and a shift toward “broader institutional priorities.” Mason-Brown, however, calls this a pretext. “The truth made people uncomfortable. Our work threatened donations from descendants of slave-owning families still connected to the university,” he argues.
Harvard denies these allegations. In a statement, the university emphasized its “ongoing commitment to transparency,” pointing to initiatives like the Harvard & the Legacy of Slavery project, which published a detailed report in 2022. That report, however, avoids naming specific descendants or modern-day donors—a detail Mason-Brown calls “convenient.”
A Pattern of Institutional Reluctance
This clash reflects a larger struggle within academia. Universities like Brown, Georgetown, and William & Mary have grappled with similar reckonings, often facing backlash from alumni or donors. But Harvard’s case stands out because of its stature as America’s oldest and wealthiest university—and its symbolic role in shaping the nation’s intellectual elite.
Critics argue that institutions often prioritize reputation over accountability. “There’s a fear that acknowledging historical harms could lead to financial repercussions or legal claims,” explains Dr. Evelyn Carter, a historian at Columbia University. “But avoiding these conversations does more damage. It erases the lived experiences of those who suffered.”
For Mason-Brown, the issue is personal. As a Black scholar, he sees his work as part of a broader movement to correct historical narratives. “Slavery wasn’t a footnote in Harvard’s story—it was foundational,” he says. “The money, the land, the prestige—all of it traces back to exploited lives.”
The Ripple Effects of Uncovering the Past
The debate over Harvard’s history raises urgent questions: What do institutions owe to the descendants of those they enslaved? How can reparations or restorative justice be meaningfully pursued?
Some universities have taken steps. Georgetown created a fund to support descendants of enslaved people sold by the school in 1838. Princeton renamed buildings honoring pro-slavery leaders. But Harvard’s actions—including a $100 million pledge for research and partnerships with historically Black colleges—have been criticized as vague.
Mason-Brown argues that real accountability starts with specificity. “Harvard won’t even admit how many enslaved people were connected to its operations,” he says. “Without that baseline, how can you begin to make amends?”
His experience also highlights the precarious position of researchers tasked with investigating institutional wrongdoing. “There’s an inherent conflict,” says Carter. “Universities want control over their narratives, but true historical reckoning requires independence.”
A Call for Courage in Confronting History
The controversy at Harvard underscores a painful truth: confronting slavery’s legacy is messy, uncomfortable, and often politically fraught. Yet scholars like Mason-Brown insist it’s necessary. “You can’t celebrate Harvard’s 400-year history without acknowledging what made that history possible,” he says.
As universities worldwide face pressure to address systemic racism, Harvard’s story serves as a cautionary tale. Institutions must decide whether to cling to sanitized origin myths or embrace the complexity of their pasts—even when it hurts.
For now, Mason-Brown continues his research independently, determined to publish his findings. “History isn’t a PR tool,” he says. “If Harvard wants to lead, it needs to stop hiding behind platitudes and confront the ugly details head-on.”
The lesson here extends beyond one university. In an era of rising calls for social justice, how institutions handle their histories will define their legitimacy for generations to come. As Mason-Brown puts it: “You can’t repair what you refuse to see.”
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Uncomfortable Truth: How a Harvard Historian’s Slavery Research Sparked Controversy