Last week, Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth H. Warren kicked off her race for U.S. Senate, challenging the less-than-one-year Republican incumbent Scott Brown. However, Warren, a former assistant to the president and special advisor to the U.S. treasury secretary, has come under criticism for her purported lack of genuine understanding of the middle class. In a column for the Boston Herald, Holly Robichaud wrote that “as a Harvard professor married to another Harvard professor, [Warren] may find connecting with middle-class voters a tough sell.” She's also been marked as “a tax-and-spend liberal from Harvard” by the communications director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Brian Walsh. It seems that Warren's Harvard connection has become a point of near-ridicule for her opponents who paint her as a know-it-all academic.

However, Harvard affiliation should not be a scarlet letter for leaders. Rather than putting unfounded faith in the “average Joe with a truck” persona espoused by politicians, voters should prefer candidates with specialized knowledge of subject matter. International relations, economic stability, and governmental responsibility are issues that neither can nor should be handled by the unqualified. The concept that a public official with an Ivy League affiliation will only serve to meet the needs of the elite is a ridiculous generalization. Theodore Roosevelt, Class of 1880, pushed Congress to pass the Pure Food and Drugs Act in order to protect the public from unsafe practices by consumer goods companies. Edward M. Kennedy '56, campaigned tirelessly to reform the health insurance industry to ensure coverage for all income groups. As U.S. Senator, Chuck Schumer '71, lobbied on behalf of homeowners during the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis to prevent foreclosures and limit unfair bank policies.

These politicians were able to stand up for the middle class partly because they had educational backgrounds that contributed to a deep understanding of relevant issues. Attacks against candidates because of their Harvard affiliation only serve to undermine useful political discourse and denigrates the value of their educational background. We need intelligent leaders to make well-informed decisions that have real-world consequences for all economic classes. All voters should strive for state representatives who can utilize their expertise to adeptly fulfill their constituents' needs in the democratic system.

Additionally, at a time when markets are volatile due to double-dip recession fears and sustained high unemployment, we should seek politicians who have the necessary training and experience in economic matters. In order to alleviate market-based problems and fiscal uncertainties, the public should look up to those who have in-depth knowledge of the intersection between government and finance. Warren's academic background and research has led to her appointment to multiple critical government positions including the Congressional Oversight Panel on the implementation of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. As a person who has written over 100 scholarly articles on subjects such as fiscal responsibility within the household, her Harvard ties should not discredit her ability as an effective public servant.

Furthermore, Warren's academic work signals a commitment to the middle class—a devotion that her opponents have tried to besmirch. Warren has been one of the leading proponents of financial literacy among the public and was the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency developed to prevent deceitful or unfair practices by financial institutions. Opponents who argue that Warren is simply an “academic elite” with little connection to the middle class overlook the extensive work she has done to empower the ordinary consumer. At a time when both the public and politicians are rallying against unfair bank policies, it is antithetical that the very steward of consumer protection is being so outwardly criticized.

Ultimately, this backlash against Elizabeth Warren reflects a deeper disconnect between the public perception of Harvard and reality. Harvard is constantly satirized as institution that produces elitist students and professors who are immune and unaware of the needs of the “real world.” However, political pundits and opponents who use Harvard as a target for criticism cling to an antiquated notion of our institution as an ivory tower of exclusion. Modern-day Harvard is committed to increasing its accessibility by providing extensive financial aid opportunities as well as engaging heavily in diversity recruiting.

With students and professors who hail from a multitude of ethnic, social, religious, and economic backgrounds, Harvard has transcended its once rich-white-male-only paradigm. Politicians who use Harvard as an insult should reformulate their perceptions and find more tenable and relevant sources of criticism.