When you hear the name Elena, what comes to mind? If you were at Harvard last semester, you might recall the colorful Harvard Right to Life (HRL) posters depicting a fetus in various stages of development with a child’s crayon scribble saying “Hi, I’m Elena! Watch me grow!!” While undoubtedly controversial, the HRL posters were the essence of effective activism in that they were highly successful at raising awareness about an issue that gets far too little attention at Harvard.

As a former president of HRL who held office during the Elena campaign, I understand better than anyone else the impact of our postering. I received the countless condemnatory and congratulatory e-mails about our Elena posters, observed and participated in long discussions on House e-mail lists, and answered numerous phone calls and interview requests from The Crimson and national media. I felt looks of scorn as I tabled for University Health Services refunds for elective abortions, set up flag displays in front of the Science Center, and proudly wore my “Working for the Class of 2026” t-shirt to class.

Activism is not about controversy for its own sake. HRL and other activist-minded organizations strive to create dialogue about their respective chosen causes because of the dearth of discussion on such topics at Harvard. Whether the topic is abortion or the daily life of a Harvard janitor, the average Harvard student is not sufficiently challenged to question the assumptions that he or she takes for granted.

HRL knows that we are unlikely to change Harvard students’ minds about such a polarizing issue with one simple poster. Nonetheless, the flurry of campus discussions and debates following each new poster or protest proves just how successful such tactics can be in disseminating a group’s message. I often joke that I measure HRL’s success in terms of how many of and how quickly our posters have been torn down. If I see our posters still hanging, then most likely they have not made the impact we had hoped for. That being said, the tactic is not an end but merely an effective means to get people who would otherwise ignore us to consider our arguments and point of view.

Students in the minority have the greatest need for being heard. Middle-of-the-road views (by Harvard’s—and not national—standards) foster complacency, and thus the groups making the biggest splashes are the ones whose members feel most threatened by their minority status. The underdogs have the most to fight for, so they do it most loudly.

I am the first to acknowledge that most HRL members are more on the ideological fringe of the Harvard student body than their pro-choice counterparts—we do not have the membership numbers of the Harvard College Democrats or the Harvard Republican Club. Groups like the Socialist Alternative, the May Day Coalition, the Student Labor Action Movement, and other projects spearheaded by the campus left are in a similar position to HRL with respect to membership size.

The fact that the smallest groups make the most noise suggests that all activism at Harvard requires is a little bit of money and a lot of elbow grease. HRL, for example, has students who are passionate enough about the culture of life to spend countless hours postering in the blistering cold at 7:15 a.m. every Monday and Thursday. They face chastisement if seen by friends with posters in hand, and are often the sole voices willing to defend the pro-life cause on House e-mail lists.

Thankfully, these courageous individuals’ commitment to bring an alternative message to campus outweighs their fear of being “outed.” And my admiration does not stop at more conservative groups. I do not support any of the disrespectful tactics employed by radical, left-wing activists on campus—such as disrupting a CIA panel by throwing up, calling each other’s cell phones, and shouting. Nor do I approve of almost any of the causes for which they advocate, including kicking the Coca-Cola Company off campus, giving workers a living wage, and forcing out military and business recruiters. I do, however, recognize their ability to influence or even create campus-wide debate. They organize protests and marches, table in dining halls, host lectures, and pass out flyers in front of the Science Center. Their commitment and drive is admirable.

Critics of the tactics employed by such organizations refuse to recognize how effective spectacle and controversy can be when the deck is stacked against an organization. If a student group incites criticism, its message has been heard, which is more than can be said about the group that does not bother to engage the student body.

Indeed, the point of activism is to draw attention to a cause, and though some may call for more rational argument, all too often nobody will listen no matter how reasonable one is. That’s why activists are so committed to holding rallies, plastering the campus with posters, or staging sit-ins. Activism executed respectfully yet provocatively is a necessary tool in ensuring the most important facet of a Harvard education—the cultivation of political awareness and engagement.



Meghan E. Grizzle ’07 is a linguistics concentrator in Leverett House.