{shortcode-bc6ef4ccd295d43acc14ab3b4ef592c6b4289996}

In its struggle to realize itself as an intellectually vital, academically free, and institutionally neutral university, Harvard has grappled with question after question about campus discourse.

Chief among them: Who should speak?

Meetings between the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee and Harvard Hillel didn’t progress, reportedly, in part, because of disputes over who was included. A dialogue series hosted by Harvard Kennedy School professor Tarek E. Masoud featuring guests spanning the ideological spectrum drew criticism from students and professors alike for speakers’ views.

Campus-wide, productive speaker events are hardly plentiful — in large part because no one quite agrees about what an invitation means. To promote productive dialogue, we should all recognize that inviting someone to campus is not an endorsement of all their views; it’s merely a statement that they’re worth hearing.

There’s no denying that an invitation to speak at Harvard is, in some sense, a sign of someone’s merit — after all, there are only a finite number of events that our University can host. Campus groups have the weighty responsibility of seeking out speakers who have relevant expertise or experience.

But their decision to invite a speaker need not imply agreement with all their guest’s views. Conflating these two concepts risks unnecessarily subjecting our peers to judgment for views they do not hold and pressuring them to resist dialogue fearing the backlash it might provoke.

Masoud created a balanced speaker series, featuring guests with both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel views. In the process, he drew criticism from all sides of the conflict for the opinions invitees espoused. The retaliation is indicative of a deeper rot in our campus’ conversation culture: We are too quick to judge speakers before hearing them out and too eager to blast those who are willing to listen.

We need to rebuild our approach to dialogue on campus, and that starts with recognizing the opportunity diverse speakers bring — both in balanced speaker series like Masoud’s and in less formal student group settings.

Even issue-oriented campus groups who invite speakers that affirm their beliefs contribute to our discourse — they can challenge an audience to engage with opposing beliefs and often offer clarity that more balanced discussions cannot.

In any case, those making good-faith efforts to promote campus discourse around difficult topics — an undeniably daunting task — must not face professional repercussions or social ostracism.

Whether it’s an academic like professor Masoud fielding chilly receptions from his colleagues and feeling his initiatives have made promotion within the University impossible or a proctor facing doxxing for convening a controversial panel, retaliation can stifle future attempts at hard conversations. Those threats are particularly acute for members of our community who lack the protection of tenure.

After a year of calling for more discourse, Masoud’s speaker series offers a dose of optimism and inspiration. But until University culture changes, initiatives like these will remain few and far between.

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.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.