My
most vivid memory of my Harvard MBA might have been the brutally cold weather
that sent us scurrying into the underground tunnels, my sharp-minded classmates
who turned every class into a lively debate, the plush country-club HBS
facilities complete with chandeliers and leather sofas, the new Spangler lounge
where we gathered between lectures, or evenings in the homes of friends. But
September 11th cast those memories in a different light, and the fallout of that
event remains the strongest marker of my MBA days.
Being
Jewish and married to an Israeli, Ehud Eiran, I was constantly preoccupied,
along with my husband, with news of Israeli events and the US campaign in
Afghanistan. Peoples’ personal response to the terrorist attacks in the US and
Israel provided a revealing insight into their natures and values.
Immediately
after we witnessed the horrifying scenes on the campus TV screens, most students
were anxiously trying to get news of loved ones who worked in the Financial
District. Some gaped in helpless disbelief; others struggled to contain their
choking anger; but amazingly, as the hours wore on, many American classmates
responded with soul-searching self-criticism. This response was in stark
contrast to the patriotism wellspring generated from most Americans outside of
the rarified intellectual confines of Harvard University.
Students
clambered to vent their views and feelings. Historically, HBS has veered away
from political controversy, preferring instead to focus on uniting students of
disparate nationalities into an integrated community. In my first year, the HBS
Administration refused to grant permission to the Jewish Students Association to
host an event at HBS to discuss the outbreak of the Second Intifada. The
Administration was fearful that the event would be too controversial and
divisive. However, following 9/11, the Administration found there was an
overwhelming demand throughout the HBS community to talk about 9/11 and its
aftermath. In response, the Administration cautiously opened the doors to
political discussion and debate, keeping all events under strict facilitation
and monitoring by HBS faculty. I was disturbed to hear many HBS students at
these forums berate the US’s foreign policy failings. There was, I feared, a
naiveté amongst American students regarding the new enemy revealed in their
midst. Finding fault with a country that tries to promote global democracy, on
the grounds that it has not adequately concerned itself with other nations’
woes, was an ineffectual and unrealistic way to respond to the newly exposed
terrorist threat.
What
initially seemed like politically correct posturing later developed into a
genuine attempt by the student body to reflect on our priorities. Although I was
already known to be concerned about the environment and sustainable development,
I did not feel or express a dram of empathy for Al-Qaeda sympathizers.
Nevertheless, many conscience-stricken MBA classmates did see fit to do so.
There was even a Jordanian classmate who claimed that the Mossad was behind the
9/11 attacks!
When
it came to the Israeli-Palestian dispute, student reactions became even more
convoluted. Many American Jews were embarrassed by Israel, as the alleged cause
of the terror attacks. Others were relieved that Israel’s problems would now
be understood. For my husband and I, and probably for all the Israeli students
at HBS, the issue was not just an abstract discussion, as we were mourning
Israeli casualties, including a friend of ours who was killed while on reserve
duty in Jenin.
Six
months after 9/11, I was fortunate to attend a double bill at the Kennedy School
of Government. In the first speech, Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate in Economics,
gave a talk on “Globalizing What?” He focused on the need for the powerful
but bruised western world to take a lead in globalizing equity, and to provide
incentives to share wealth as much as to build wealth. In the second speech,
General Richard Myers, Chairman of The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed the
aftermath of September 11th. He warned of a protracted struggle. He attributed
America’s initial success to a united and supportive populace, to a bipartisan
government, to focused and well-coordinated military action, and to an
imaginative and flexible military command. But when asked about Israel, he could
not offer the same ingredients as a recipe for success. Questioned about the
Middle East and how the USA would protect its own people from suicide bombings,
he had no answers. But he several times repeated his plea – go into public
service or somehow try to be part of the solution to terrorism.
Looking
back over two years, I believe HBS has equipped its students to respond to both
speakers’ calls. The HBS ethos is for the most part geared towards maximizing
profits and fostering market competition, yet the school has incorporated
business ethics and social issues into the core and elective curriculum. The
Administration’s recent willingness to allow open student debate about
controversial political issues and world events has better enabled us to learn
about and formulate opinions about important social and political tensions. No
business leader can succeed in today’s world without a value-based judgment
about these issues. By developing an environment in which controversy can be
aired, HBS has enhanced its mission to develop outstanding business leaders who
contribute to the well being of society.
Based
on my past work experience in Israel, this type of education, one that
incorporates political and social dimensions, is closer to the Israeli business
environment. As I am planning to go back to Israel and work in the for-profit
environmental sector, I believe my HBS education has prepared me well. I am
looking forward to contributing to a nascent environmental industry in Israel,
by combining the hard business skills I have acquired at HBS, along with a
socially responsible approach to the environment.
