Two weeks ago, a group of Harvard College students launched Renegade, a magazine that seeks to provide an outlet for students of color on Harvard’s campus. This past week, the Crimson reported that several posters parodying the publication had been posted in Pforzheimer House. The House Masters subsequently issued a statement condemning the fake posters, while also indicating their intention to remove the satirical posters.

Sadly, these specific posters distract from the broader issue at hand. Renegade’s existence demonstrates a problem with the nature of our conversation on the ever-present and important issues of race, gender, and class.  If members of our Harvard community feel so alienated from it, we should and must all be horrified. Especially in light of recent events, including the ongoing national conversation about police violence, having an inclusive campus discussion is critical. As a community, there is no choice but to move forward in our quest to eradicate the scourges of racial injustice, gender-based discrimination, and classism. In this, Renegade represents a positive and potentially transformative force.

Unfortunately, the parody posters had a negative impact on this discussion.  Instead of helping to move the conversation forward, they made an already divisive issue more contentious. These posters seemed to mock the topics that are central to Renegade—issues about the sometimes uncomfortable realities concerning race and Harvard. These are too sensitive to satirize, but more importantly, they are too critical to mock. 

Yet once the posters were up, the Pforzheimer House Masters’ choice to call for their removal was wrong. Just as mockery inhibits productive debate, so too does censorship; simply erasing abhorrent viewpoints does not solve the underlying problem. Threatening to remove the posters did not generate a productive, inclusive, and meaningful conversation on race. When opposing views are not permitted, the discussion simply stalls. If we disagree—as we do—with the content of these satirical posters, then the response should be to make this a teachable moment, to seize this opportunity to start a better dialogue. 

Censorship should never be the answer. Running a publication requires openness to criticism. It should be expected that some would disagree; and that disagreement should serve as a basis for discussion. To say that satire of a magazine “personally hurt[s]” the writers is a dangerous precedent, even given the unquestionably sensitive issues at hand—the role of Harvard House Masters is not to determine what views are allowed. It is true that Renegade represents a more marginalized view than its critics; it is also true that the principle of free expression does not apply only to those in the margins.  

On race, as with any issue, persuasion should trump censorship and discussion should trump accusation. This is a lesson that both the Pforzheimer House Masters and Renegade’s critics would do well to learn.  As our campus and our country navigate seemingly intractable divisions over skin color, socioeconomic status, and gender identity, it will be conversations and community that win the day, not thought policing or accusations of radicalism by one side and racism by the other.  To paraphrase a misattribution of Voltaire, we may disapprove of these posters, but we strongly defend their right to be posted.