{shortcode-2291c9502a7227383456a499fc3d9cce9ec2c32e}

After a tumultuous semester defined by pro-Palestinian activism, a dramatic congressional hearing, and former University President Claudine Gay’s resignation, the political tension on Harvard’s campus is palpable.

In the wake of one of the most tense periods in Harvard’s history, the anticipated announcement of a working group considering a policy of institutional neutrality might finally allow the University to exit the political spotlight. While I can understand how political exhaustion might lead one — including the Crimson’s own Editorial Board — to endorse such a position, Harvard is an unavoidably political institution.

With right-wing outrage pointed at education in recent years, it should come as no surprise that such a famous university is often implicated in conservative political discourse. If many conservatives discard higher education writ large as worthless “indoctrination,” then it’s predictable that those same conservatives decry the most culturally recognizable figure of higher education.

Yet, as much as I disagree with the criticisms conservatives levy against Harvard, they share something in common with my own leftist critique of the University: Each recognizes that Harvard’s choices have political impacts, regardless if they label these choices as political.

For example, pundits on both sides correctly understand Harvard’s curriculum choices — both what they chose to include and exclude — as having political significance.

Though I wholeheartedly disagree with the causes these conservatives aim to advance, there is some broad truth to gain in their critiques of the University: It is politically significant for Harvard to house so few self-identifying conservative faculty, just as it is politically significant for Harvard to resist calls for an ethnic studies department for over 50 years or to maintain an elitist policy of legacy admissions.

Actions speak louder than words, and inaction too, is certainly an active choice. The political interpretations of each of these choices illustrate why true institutional neutrality is impossible — even should Harvard decline to comment on every last issue.

The broader, more worrisome implications of neutrality policies is that institutional neutrality effectively freezes a university in time, protecting the status quo from political critiques and social movements. A blanket acceptance of the status quo is far from politically “neutral” — if anything, it’s conservative.

I fear that such a policy will become nothing but a false pretense at the University’s disposal — an excuse to hinder progressive choices and not engage with student movements.

Consider how an “institutionally neutral” Harvard might navigate student demands for it to divest its endowment investments from fossil fuels.

Should the University follow students’ lead, its choice would clearly represent an endorsement of left-leaning politics. Similarly, if the University fervently defends its fossil fuel investments, this would reflect the conservative position.

If Harvard were institutionally neutral, it might ignore such demands altogether, claiming they could not engage with the issue out of an interest in remaining “neutral,” if questions arose. But, the outcome of this supposedly “neutral” stance is no different than the conservative stance.

This hypothetical was a reality at the University of Chicago only a few short years ago, when the university used its “Kalven Principles” of institutional neutrality to justify inaction on climate change. Students still accurately recognized this inaction as a political choice and have continued to push for divestment from fossil fuels and transparency in endowment.

This scenario reflects a reality that Harvard, just like every other university, must face: There is no such thing as a truly politically neutral stance or course of action. Universities can decline to openly engage with the political world, but everything from their course offerings to their endowment investments are inherently political.

Rather than falsely portray the University, its faculty, its students, and its pedagogy as apolitical, Harvard ought to focus on doing the right thing. The University should engage with its students, reflect on its values, and make administrative choices and statements with transparency and conviction — not cower behind the faulty guise of neutrality.

It may sound nice for Harvard to exist free from political controversy, but that simply is not possible. The question should not be “how can we remove ourselves from politics,” but rather, “what is the right thing for our institution to do?”

Joseph W. Hernandez ’25, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Sociology and Government concentrator in Adams House.