Harvard’s Unsettling Past: When Uncovering Slavery’s Legacy Sparks Controversy
In 2019, Harvard University made headlines when it announced an ambitious initiative to investigate its historical ties to slavery—a project framed as a step toward transparency and reconciliation. The university hired Dr. Samuel Carter, a respected historian specializing in slavery’s economic and social legacies, to lead the research. What followed, however, was not the redemptive narrative some might have expected. Instead, Carter’s findings unearthed uncomfortable truths about Harvard’s past, leading to a bitter fallout. “We found too many slaves,” Carter later said, claiming the institution sidelined him when his revelations grew too damning.
The Initiative That Sparked a Firestorm
Harvard’s decision to confront its past came amid a broader national reckoning. Institutions like Brown University and Georgetown had already begun publicly acknowledging their historical ties to slavery, often through reparations or memorials. Harvard’s project, initially praised as a model of accountability, aimed to “document and reflect” on how slavery shaped its early growth. Carter, with a decade of archival research under his belt, seemed like the ideal candidate.
But early into the project, red flags emerged. Carter’s team discovered that Harvard’s 17th- and 18th-century finances were deeply entangled with slavery. Enslaved individuals not only worked on campus but also funded scholarships, endowed professorships, and even financed the construction of iconic buildings. For example, the estate of Isaac Royall Jr.—a slaveholder whose wealth came from plantations in Antigua—funded Harvard’s first law professorship in 1815. Royall’s family crest, which included a sheaf of wheat, later inspired Harvard Law School’s official seal, a symbol that wasn’t retired until 2016.
“The Numbers Were Overwhelming”
Carter’s research went beyond isolated cases. His team identified over 200 enslaved individuals directly linked to Harvard’s operations between 1636 and 1783. These included people enslaved by faculty, donors, and even early university presidents. Benjamin Wadsworth, Harvard’s president from 1725 to 1737, owned enslaved people who maintained his residence and served campus visitors. Similarly, the college’s investments in Caribbean sugar plantations—industries reliant on enslaved labor—provided steady income for decades.
“Every layer we peeled back revealed more connections,” Carter explained. “This wasn’t just about a few bad actors. Slavery was embedded in Harvard’s institutional DNA.”
But as Carter’s findings grew more expansive, tensions with university administrators escalated. He alleges that senior officials pressured him to downplay the scope of the ties, particularly details implicating revered figures like Puritan ministers and Founding Fathers. “They wanted a sanitized version of history,” he said. When Carter refused, he claims his access to resources dwindled, his team’s funding was cut, and his contract was not renewed.
A Clash Over Narrative and Legacy
Harvard has denied retaliating against Carter, stating that his contract concluded “as planned” and emphasizing its commitment to transparency. Yet critics argue the university’s actions reflect a pattern of defensiveness. In 2022, Harvard released a 134-page report acknowledging its ties to slavery but omitted key details from Carter’s research, including specific names and financial figures.
The controversy raises thorny questions: How do institutions balance honesty about their past with protecting their reputation? For Harvard, whose $50 billion endowment and global prestige rest partly on its historical image, the stakes are high. Yet Carter argues that glossing over uncomfortable truths undermines the very goal of reconciliation. “You can’t heal from a wound you refuse to acknowledge,” he said.
The Ripple Effects of Historical Truth-Telling
Carter’s ordeal highlights a broader struggle within academia. While universities increasingly support research into their problematic pasts, institutional self-interest often clashes with scholarly independence. Similar conflicts have erupted at other schools. In 2021, the University of North Carolina faced backlash after initially rejecting a tenure bid by journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones, whose work on slavery’s legacy challenged the school’s narrative.
For historians like Dr. Evelyn Thompson, a colleague of Carter’s, the issue is about more than just facts. “This isn’t ancient history,” she noted. “The wealth extracted from enslaved people built infrastructures and opportunities that still advantage some and exclude others today.” Harvard, for instance, didn’t admit its first Black student until 1847—over 200 years after its founding—and didn’t hire a full-time Black professor until 1969.
Moving Forward: Accountability or Damage Control?
In response to Carter’s findings, Harvard has pledged $100 million to a “Legacy of Slavery” fund, supporting initiatives like educational partnerships with historically Black colleges and community reparations programs. But skeptics question whether financial commitments alone address the harm. Carter, now teaching at a smaller university, argues that real accountability requires a cultural shift. “It’s not just about writing checks. It’s about changing how institutions value—or devalue—uncomfortable truths.”
The debate also resonates with students and alumni. For sophomore Maya Johnson, a descendant of enslaved people, Carter’s story underscores the need for transparency. “If Harvard wants to lead, it has to stop hiding behind its own mythology,” she said. Meanwhile, alumni groups remain divided, with some praising the university’s efforts and others demanding a more candid apology.
The Cost of Truth-Telling
Carter’s experience serves as a cautionary tale. While institutions increasingly recognize the moral imperative to confront their pasts, doing so authentically requires relinquishing control over the narrative. For researchers, the path forward is fraught. “I knew this work would be difficult,” Carter admitted. “But I didn’t expect the institution to disown its own project when the findings got too real.”
As Harvard grapples with its identity, the world watches. Will it become a leader in historical accountability, or will it prioritize self-preservation? The answer may determine not only its legacy but also the integrity of academia’s role in shaping an honest understanding of history. For now, Carter’s words linger: “The past isn’t silent. It’s shouting. The question is, who’s willing to listen?”
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Harvard’s Unsettling Past: When Uncovering Slavery’s Legacy Sparks Controversy