Harvard is Helping Chile
Posted on March 2nd, 2010 in Uncategorized |
Oh, wait, sorry about that—Harvard isn’t actually doing anything to help Chile.
At least, not that I can tell. There’s nothing on the president’s page, nothing in the Crimson, nothing in the Gazette.
Yet just one earthquake ago, Harvard hosted a concert to help Haiti, asked its alumni for money for Haiti, established a relief fund for Harvard employees affected by the quake, gave an award to a Haitian who may funneled money from a Haiti charity into his own bank account—not that you’d find any mention of this in the Crimson—and hosted a Drew Faust web page for Haiti. Among other things.
Does Harvard have earthquake fatigue already? Did not enough people die in Chile to merit Harvard’s attention? Are there no Chilean students at Harvard and no Chilean employees? Or is it that the Harvard College dean is African-American and the Harvard president a scholar of slavery, so they feel a greater connection to Haiti? Would things be different if the president of Harvard were Latina?
After all, it’s not like a Harvard president recently visited Chile.
Of course, the Haitian earthquake was considerably more devastating than the one in Chile. So wouldn’t that mean that Harvard, if it wants to help in cases of tragedy, should help Haiti considerably more than it helps Chile?
As opposed to, you know, not helping Chile?
I’m just trying to figure out the logic here. But maybe the implicit assumption of that question is in error.
8 Responses
3/2/2010 2:51 pm
I still don’t see any categorical difference here between Yale and Harvard. Both undertook efforts to assist Haiti. Neither has done something similar for Chile. So what is the point about Harvard?
3/2/2010 2:56 pm
“Did not enough people die in Chile to merit Harvard’s attention?”
Yes.
3/2/2010 3:24 pm
SE, you are nothing if not blunt! Kudos for your honestly.
DoubleStandard, you have a fair point. My interest in this issue really began when I received the *second* email from Evelynn Hammonds asking me for money, which Yale did not do. But more broadly, I agree with you. The questions I put about Harvard could equally be applied to Yale.
3/2/2010 3:58 pm
Haiti is a special case for two reasons beyond the death toll issue that SE raised.
First, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Helping them recover from this earthquake has more humanitarian moral importance because they deserved more assistance than they were receiving even before the quake. Chile is a comparatively wealth country can weather natural disasters much better, as evidence by the much lower death toll.
Second, Haiti’s poverty is arguably related to a further political fact: Haiti is also the only country in the Western Hemisphere to have a successful slave revolution. As a result of this, Haiti was actively shunned by the US and France even forced the already-poor country into debt by claiming that slaveowners required reparations for their lost property. As a result, Haiti was never given the opportunity to develop its economy properly and has been the victim of repeated imperial interventions by the US and other countries in more recent decades. All of this gives special political urgency to providing assistance to Haiti now.
Again, compare with Chile: the US did help to overthrow the Allende government in 1973, so we arguably retain important duties of reparations to them too — especially given the costs they endured from Pinochet’s subsequent dictatorship. However, I don’t think you see the unique nexus of humanitarian and political obligations in the Chilean case as you do in the Haitian case.
So given Haiti’s special status in the Americas, I think it’s entirely appropriate that Harvard do something in that case and not the Chilean case.
3/2/2010 4:34 pm
That’s a thoughtful answer, Anon, and thanks for taking the time to write it. But implicit in that answer is the premise that one picks and chooses which disasters to get involved in, and part of that equation has to do with death toll, part has to do with politics, part—you didn’t mention this, but it is surely true—has to do with the strength of the relevant constituency at the university itself. None of these things have been articulated by Harvard’s leadership, and that raises the question whether, in Colin Powell’s phrase, Harvard is falling prey to mission creep.
Also, your argument vis-a-vis the Allende government doesn’t exactly warm the heart or convince the brain.
But I suppose this is what you might call non-profit realpolitik….
3/2/2010 4:37 pm
A final thought: I expect that if one were to do a little digging, one could find very similar things to say about Chile and its history, which we may not know as well as we do Haiti’s. In which case the question of why Haiti and why not Chile would remain unanswered.
3/2/2010 5:55 pm
This is a case of comparing apples and oranges people, nothing more than that. Anyone who tries to weave an explanation involving geopolitics, historical imperative or some other strand of bullshit really deserves a hard slap in the face in this instance.
Both countries were affected by devastating earthquakes, but the fact of the matter is that Haiti, for any number of reasons and unlike Chile, was in no way, shape or form prepared to respond to the needs of the country and its people after the quake, period.
Harvard, in any number of ways, and like any number of organizations from all over the world, was able to respond and help when it was needed most. That being said, who sets the standard or criteria for how an organization should respond in this instance, let alone how they should be judged afterward?
Something tells me Dr. Paul Farmer and others like him weren’t thinking about slave owners or imperial interventions when trying to save a young boys leg from amputation. He was probably thinking about his medical training and what from that could help him help these people.
3/2/2010 6:32 pm
Paul Farmer isn’t the issue here. We all agree he’s doing amazing and important work; the debate is really about Harvard’s institutional role, not the actions of an individual actor affiliated with Harvard.
There’s no question that Haiti was less prepared to deal with its crisis than Chile, the question is why Harvard? (Whose response went far beyond working with Paul Farmer.) Is it Harvard’s mission to raise money for international crises?
Maybe it is, but I’ve never heard anyone come out and say so, probably because the implications of such an assertion get complicated fast.
And if Harvard chooses to help one country, why not another? By all accounts, while not as bad off as Haiti, Chile is certainly asking other countries and non-profit institutions for aid…