Speaking at a financial conference earlier this month, Professor Niall Ferguson answered a question about John Maynard Keynes’ famous statement, “In the long run we are all dead.” In his response, Professor Ferguson criticized Keynes for caring too little about long term economic prospects and for placing undue importance on present conditions.
The way Professor Ferguson made the point, however, has rightfully triggered passionate outrage. Although there are differing accounts of what he actually said, the core of his comment seems to have been something like this: Keynes’ lacked due concern for the future because he was a gay man who was more interested in talking poetry with his wife than in having children. The suggestion being, of course, that gay people and the barren cannot properly sympathize with future generations.
Shortly after his remarks went viral, Professor Ferguson issued an unqualified apology in which he characterized his comments as “stupid” and “insensitive” and, a few days later, he apologized once more in an open letter to the Harvard community.
Going a step further, he reached out on his own accord to Harvard’s Queer Students and Allies and to the Harvard College Office of BGLTQ Student Life with the idea of orchestrating a community conversation around the issue of History and Sexuality.
The conversation eventually drew a sizable crowd to the Harvard College Women’s Center Lounge where Professor Ferguson, once again, offered an unreserved and unqualified apology for his remarks. By the end of the conversation, Professor Ferguson had spoken on a wide range of issues. Notably, in response to a direct question from a student, he addressed his longtime friendship with famed openly gay columnist Andrew Sullivan (who is the godfather to one of his sons and played a notable role at his wedding).
What are we to make of all this and how should we view Professor Ferguson going forward? That is a question each of us will answer for ourselves.
As someone who has intimately worked with LGBT causes for the last five years, I would like to publicly share my answer:
Apology Accepted.
Why? Because all of us make mistakes and what matters in the end, at least in my eyes, is how we respond to those mistakes. To be sure, Professor Ferguson’s comments were incredibly hurtful and offensive. No one, not even even he, disputes this fact. But does that mean he is beyond redemption? Is it the case that nothing he says or does can ever absolve him from his mistake? And if not, what exactly must he do to redeem himself?
These questions are, of course, not new to any gay person. Few of us have had the luxury of growing up in families or socializing with friends who have not, at some point or another, said something we found painfully offensive. But what would have become of those relationships if we had not, at some point or another, learned to recognize a sincere apology and respond with forgiveness?
Sincerity, perhaps, is exactly what some find lacking from the present situation. It has been suggested more than once that Professor’s Ferguson’s apologies are nothing more than a political stunt meant to save face. If you are seeking proof regarding the purity of his motives, all I can do is point you to his numerous apologies and continued attempts to reach out to the gay community. Beyond this, I have nothing else to offer.
In circumstances like these, perhaps gut feeling and intuition is all we have to fall back on. As for myself, I will fall back on the sure knowledge that if I have erred in judgment, at least I erred on the side of forgiveness.
The views expressed in this article are expressly those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of any organization of which he might be a part.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.