Jeff W. Lichtman walked into a Monday morning meeting as Dean of Science expecting to talk through faculty hiring.
He left without his job.
At the Jan. 12 meeting, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra surprised the biology professor by handing him a letter informing him that he would no longer serve as Dean of Science, according to two people familiar with the matter. Four people familiar with the situation said Lichtman was fired.
The removal came after months of friction between Lichtman and Hoekstra over how sharply to cut graduate student admissions in the Sciences division — reductions Hoekstra said were necessary after the Trump administration cut off nearly $3 billion in federal funding.
As federal grants were frozen and the FAS prepared for a looming budget deficit, Hoekstra pushed for deep cuts to science Ph.D. admissions. Lichtman advocated for smaller reductions and broader faculty consultation in decisions, two of the people said.
The Jan. 12 meeting had replaced the divisional deans’ weekly gathering, and Lichtman believed it would focus on routine issues in the Division of Science. Instead, Hoekstra told him she was dissatisfied with his communication, according to two people. On one occasion, the other two divisional deans — Arts and Humanities Dean Sean D. Kelly and Social Science Dean David M. Cutler ’87 — had prepared lengthy PowerPoint presentations, while Lichtman had not.
The person said that before Lichtman entered the meeting, his interim replacement had already been selected. Earth and Planetary Sciences professor David T. Johnston — one of three faculty who worked in Lichtman’s executive office — had agreed to serve as interim dean before Lichtman was informed of his removal.
Two days later, in a Jan. 14 email to Division of Science faculty, Hoekstra announced that Lichtman had “stepped down.” She offered no explanation for his departure and has continued to characterize it that way without elaboration.
Individuals who spoke for this story were granted anonymity to discuss internal decision-making on personnel matters. Lichtman declined to comment for this article. FAS spokesperson James M. Chisholm declined to provide further details on Hoekstra’s rationale for ousting Lichtman, citing a policy against commenting on personnel matters.
Lichtman had been in the post for less than two years.
‘The Lifeblood of the University’
When Lichtman — a neuroscientist best known for teaching Neuroscience 80, one of Harvard’s largest introductory science courses — accepted the deanship in 2024, he planned to split his time between research and administrative duties.
In the role, Lichtman — who emphasized faculty input in decision-making — had a front-row seat to the financial reality facing the FAS and Harvard.
After U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office, federal agencies suspended billions in research funding to Harvard, leaving labs uncertain whether grants would continue. At the same time, FAS administrators anticipated a significant structural deficit.
In March — before the largest funding suspensions had taken full effect — Harvard froze staff hiring, and the FAS announced it would keep spending flat for fiscal year 2026.
Talks of cutting graduate student admissions soon followed — and became the central point of conflict.
By late spring, Lichtman had told Hoekstra that he would be willing to accept up to a 50 percent cut in science Ph.D. admissions, according to a person familiar with the situation. The issue remained under active discussion for months.
In the fall, Hoekstra went further. After conferring with Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Dean Emma Dench and Organismic and Evolutionary Biology professor Elena M. Kramer, she informed Lichtman that she planned to eliminate graduate admissions in the Division of Sciences entirely for the following year, according to one person.
Because many science graduate students are typically funded through federal grants, bringing in a new cohort would be too risky, Hoekstra said. The Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences divisions, which do not usually rely on grant funding for graduate students, would not face similar reductions.
Had Hoekstra’s proposal gone through, it was almost certain to ignite fierce opposition across the division.
Astrophysics professor Abraham “Avi” Loeb said eliminating science admissions would have been “very unfortunate and entirely inappropriate.”
“This would be my last resort in terms of budget cuts,” Loeb said. “I do believe that students are the lifeblood of the University.”
Behind the scenes, Lichtman moved to head off the plan. According to a person familiar with the discussions, he sought to align himself with faculty concerns and worked with members of his executive team to craft an alternative that would preserve at least some graduate admissions.
Over the next few days, Lichtman and his executive team proposed roughly 70 percent cuts to graduate admissions, the person said.
But Hoekstra rejected the plan and instead directed Lichtman to cut admissions by 75 percent, the figure announced to faculty in late October.
The decision intensified frustration among science faculty already caught in a financial maelstrom. Forced to rework lab budgets and uncertain of future grants, they saw the cuts as a threat to the integrity of Harvard’s science programs.
On Oct. 23, 100 faculty members from across the Division of Sciences signed a confidential letter to Hoekstra and Lichtman warning that the cuts would cause lasting damage to Harvard’s scientific mission.
In the letter, obtained by The Crimson, faculty wrote that slashing graduate admissions would undermine research programs, weaken undergraduate science education, and force some labs to return federal funds because they could no longer carry out the work.
“Cutting the graduate programs so severely and abruptly will do permanent damage to our institution,” the professors wrote in the letter.
A month later, Hoekstra walked back the planned cuts and upped admissions to 50 percent, bringing the sciences closer in line with Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences divisions. She said the change was a result of renewed federal funding and faculty concerns.
‘A Mistake’
In the weeks following Lichtman’s removal, Hoekstra has consistently avoided describing the decision as a firing.
In her Jan. 14 email to faculty, Hoekstra wrote that Lichtman had “stepped down as Dean of Science and will focus more fully on his research and teaching.” She added that Lichtman was the largest recipient of National Institutes of Health funding within the FAS and “was himself significantly affected by these challenges.”
The email also announced that Johnston would serve as interim dean through the spring semester.
Johnston did not respond to a request for comment.
The day before Hoekstra’s email, Lichtman sent his own message to Science Division department chairs.
“I write to tell you that yesterday I was relieved of my duties as Dean of Science,” he wrote in a Jan. 13 message obtained by The Crimson. “This was not because of any sudden mishap, but what may best be described as a fundamental long-term incompatibility in how I was doing this job and the expectations of Hopi.”
“There will be some statement tomorrow,” he continued.
That message meant that when Hoekstra convened an emergency Zoom meeting of science department chairs the following day, chairs were already attempting to make sense of conflicting accounts of Lichtman’s departure.
During the meeting, Hoekstra did not clarify the specific circumstances of Lichtman’s removal, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Two weeks later, she had still not done so.
At a Jan. 28 meeting of the Faculty Council, Hoekstra was questioned about Lichtman’s dismissal, but gave no indication that there was disagreement, according to another person familiar with the matter.
Lichtman’s colleagues said his removal represented a loss for the division.
“I really appreciated his willingness to engage in thoughtful conversation, he didn’t shy away from difficult topics,” OEB department co-chair Mansi Srivastava wrote in a statement.
Molecular and Cellular Biology professor Venkatesh N. Murthy wrote that Lichtman worked to keep faculty informed even as administrative pressure mounted.
“Leaders often must make tough decisions, which cannot always be done with elaborate consultations,” he wrote in a statement. “But Jeff’s efforts for many important issues seem to hit the right balance.”
MCB professor Florian Engert, a longtime collaborator of Lichtman’s, said Lichtman had done an “excellent job as dean.”
“It’s the one thing I can say, and I don’t know whether firing him changed the landscape for the better,” Engert said.
He paused for a moment, then continued.
“It might have been a mistake,” he added.
—Staff writer Abigail S. Gerstein can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at abbysg.97. Follow her on X @abbysgerstein.
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.