{shortcode-5f3efd0a8f45b2c79d7b3e6ed24fa6ee096afdd0}

Harvard has little difficulty professing its commitment to the free exchange of ideas. It has a harder time putting that principle into practice.

On Wednesday, a scheduled panel entitled “Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and Religious Literacy” was canceled after Lowell House and the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics pulled official support amid public backlash.

Because the Editorial Board calls for unattainable balance in the name of ideological diversity and censoriousness in the name of neutrality, we dissent.

The planned event was advertised as a discussion of religious bigotry and literacy. The intended panelists were a professor of Modern Jewish studies at the Harvard Divinity School, a Ph.D. student focusing on the history of religion, and another Ph.D. student studying Islam. In other words, all three were more than qualified to engage in an academic discussion of antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Yet, today’s editorial suggests that the panelists’ views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a related, but distinct issue — compromise their scholarly expertise on the study of religion.

Discourse is not synonymous with debate. Events that bridge divides between disciplines — in this case, theology, history, and philosophy — or elucidate connections between different forms of hate can be deeply educational.

In a time in which misinformation about Judaism and Islam abounds, the voices of these panelists could have been clarifying or thought-provoking. Instead, they went regrettably unheard.

The Board has correctly lamented the state of dialogue on our campus and urged students to learn across differences. When an expert panel attempts to convene for that purpose, however, our colleagues fail to defend it.

Even if you share the Board’s concerns that the planned event would not have featured sufficient viewpoint diversity, that’s hardly a reason to endorse pulling institutional support — much less at the eleventh hour. No panels or speaker events evenly represent every viewpoint on an issue, nor must they.

Today, the Institute of Politics will host a forum on diversifying college admissions — would we require that a vociferous opponent of diversity be included alongside the three academics featured for it to go forward?

Ideological diversity must be a goal that we strive for in the aggregate, not a mandate for every individual event. Dissenting students should be allowed and encouraged to organize their own panels with institutional support. But they shouldn’t be granted a heckler’s veto to wield at will.

This incident represents a failure — not on the part of dissenting students for voicing their criticisms, but of the University for bending to them, and of our Board for handing Harvard a blank check to do so.

Puzzlingly, the Board cites its support for institutional neutrality to argue that Houses and other non-academic spaces should not sponsor events that are deemed too political.

We agree that Harvard should steer clear of word salad statement-making. But the very reason our University should remain neutral is so that our students and faculty can be proudly opinionated.

By yanking institutional support with little warning, Lowell House and the Safra Center broadcast a clear message about what viewpoints are preferred inside Harvard’s gates.

Their decision is doubly troubling given reports of outside doxxing and hate mail that contributed to the event’s cancellation. Our Board has counseled against capitulating to malicious outside actors again and again. It’s a shame they faltered here.

Saul I.M. Arnow ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House. Violet T.M. Barron ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House. ​​E. Matteo Diaz ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Grays Hall. Zakiriya H. Gladney ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Matthews Hall. McKenna E. McKrell ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Classics concentrator in Adams House. Itzel A. Rosales ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Stoughton Hall. Jasmine N. Wynn ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.