Last Thursday, the Undergraduate Council and Responsible Investment at Harvard co-hosted a town hall to discuss Harvard’s endowment. The event included a panel with representatives from the Harvard Management Corporation, professors, and Robert Zevin, a vocal critic of Harvard’s investment practices. Yet it was the noted absence of Joshua Humphreys, a senior fellow at the Tellus Institute, which caused considerable controversy. According to Humphreys, he was uninvited from the panel on the day of the event by UC president Danny P. Bicknell ’13, on the grounds that the HMC threatened to not participate unless there were changes to the panel. The University claims that the HMC had been given an inaccurate list of participants prior to the event, and wanted to either reschedule or participate with only the members they had been notified of beforehand.

In the wake of the controversy, Responsible Investment at Harvard released a statement condemning “HMC’s decision to stifle free speech” by allegedly strong-arming the UC into uninviting Humphreys. Similarly, Humphreys labeled the fiasco a “violation…of free speech.” It is unclear to what extent the HMC pressured the UC into removing Humphreys specifically, but one thing is certain: Bicknell and the rest of the Undergraduate Council acted unprofessionally and incompetently in their handling of town hall.

As sponsor, co-host, and gatekeeper of the event, the UC bears full responsibility for any alleged censorship that may or may not have taken place. The Council’s decision to uninvite Humphreys was just one of several options before them, many of which would have avoided accusations of censorship against Harvard University. Unfortunately, such a debacle as this not only taints the conversation surrounding responsible investment at Harvard, but also needlessly worsens the University’s reputation as a fair-weather protector of free speech.

What’s more, the UC’s apparent abdication of responsibility in their communications with Humphreys—choosing to lay blame on HMC rather than accepting it themselves—led Responsible Investment at Harvard to issue an inaccurate statement, discrediting a group for no reason.

While some may be inclined to see HMC’s request to reschedule or change the panel as an attempt on the part of the University to forgo criticism, the evidence suggests otherwise. It is extremely unlikely that the University would have threatened to withdraw at the last minute had they had adequate warning about the makeup of the panel. The fact of the matter is that the UC provided HMC with an inaccurate list of panelists prior to the event. It is only fair that all participants in a forum know ahead of time who else is taking part, so that they can prepare for a fruitful discussion. Given that last minute changes were made to the panel, the HMC had every right to express concern. The UC failed to be diligent in keeping its invitees abreast of the panel’s changing makeup, and, as a result, wound up greatly disrespecting Humphreys.

It is imperative that the groups organizing a panel of a contentious nature should take full responsibility for decisions regarding invitation and, yes, uninvitation rather than allowing their own errors to damage the reputations of the organizations that agreed to speak on their panel in the first place. In the case of the endowment town hall, the UC placed undue blame on HMC, thereby inviting a host of inaccurate accusations regarding the University’s desire to stifle free speech. The sooner the UC takes full responsibility, the better.