{shortcode-cc2663a1c4284ce2fd3342c465b4d76949c84635}

In an interview last week, Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana said that he hopes to expand the way Harvard College and its students define public service beyond the “narrow” conception he characterized as widespread on campus. Khurana specifically cited consulting as a line of work in which conscientious students can perform public service despite the many negative stereotypes associated with the industry, highlighting the fact that consultants often do crucial work advising governments, non-profits, and other impactful institutions.

We don’t agree with Khurana’s attempt to broaden the definition of ‘public service.’ Of course, there are many ways to serve the public, and one can certainly do noble work in the for-profit sector. However, entering into a career in public service is qualitatively different from serving the public through a career at a for-profit company. Enlarging the definition of ‘public service’ discredits the personal and financial sacrifices of those that go off the beaten path and work in more traditional public service roles. The choice to pursue a public service career — one explicitly focused on protecting the vulnerable, serving marginalized communities, and leaving a positive impact on society — is unique and deeply commendable.

There’s nothing wrong with profit-seeking students who pursue more lucrative careers. Wanting a high-paying job and the security that such a position entails is natural, and not morally egregious. Further, we’d be remiss to not acknowledge that in many career paths, it’s possible to perform a public service by being well-intentioned and working assiduously to be the best doctor, corporate lawyer, or software engineer you can be. But to label these careers as ‘public service’ would unnecessarily detract attention to the special status of public service work.

Further, the social good one can achieve in a given job varies hugely from person to person, and from job to job. Certain for-profit careers have more potential to produce a larger positive social impact than others. The recent rise of social enterprises and social impact startups highlights that there are opportunities for people looking both to make profits and to have a positive social impact.

The heart of the issue is that broadening the definition of public service diverts resources and attention away from traditional public service work, which is badly in need of both. Harvard should recognize and work to rectify the imbalance in recruitment power between various professions on campus. Due to vast disparities in resources, certain industries such as finance, tech, and consulting have a serious advantage in recruiting students. They send representatives to campus and recruit early in the semester, offering both visibility and security. We commend the work that the Office of Career Services has done thus far to promote access to employers in industries without these resources, and we hope that further efforts will work to expand access to public service work, rather than expanding our conception of public service.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.