{shortcode-fb6bb645216b496408855b5a040da0403207f064}

Noah R. Feldman ’92, who co-chaired Harvard’s Institutional Voice Working Group, slammed Wesleyan President Michael S. Roth for alleging the University only adopted its new policy of refraining from taking official positions on controversial current events out of fear Donald Trump would win back the White House.

Feldman, a prominent Harvard Law School professor, said in an interview he believed Roth “fundamentally misunderstood our policy and its reasoning.”

“The president of Wesleyan is entitled to disagree, but I am frankly surprised to hear him accuse our University of ‘cowardice’ when to my knowledge, he has had no conversations with any of us about our process,” he added.

Roth, the outspoken longtime leader of Wesleyan, said an interview with CNN last week that Harvard’s new policy — adopted at the recommendation of Feldman’s working group — was “an educational disservice at best and cowardice at worst.”

”I think they did that because they thought Trump was going to win, and if they make statements defending basic academic freedom, they’ll anger the Trump administration,” Roth added. “They were pricing in a Trump victory.”

A University spokesperson declined to comment on Roth’s allegations.

In late May, the Institutional Voice Working Group released their report recommending that Harvard refrain from commenting on controversial public affairs, a policy immediately endorsed by Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and the Harvard Corporation — the University’s highest governing body.

The group, led by Feldman and Philosophy professor Alison J. Simmons, reasoned that in refraining from statements, University administrators could better resist pressure to speak on issues they did not have expertise on “from multiple, competing sides on nearly every imaginable issue of the day.”

“The best way for the university to acknowledge pressing public events is by redoubling intellectual engagement through classes, conferences, scholarship, and teaching that draw on the expert knowledge of its faculty,” Feldman and Simmons wrote.

The decision to opt out of statements followed months of administrative turmoil at Harvard. Former Harvard President Claudine Gay never fully recovered from international backlash for her official statements about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Roth, however, said he thought Harvard changed its stance as a strategic calculation to appease a potential second Trump administration.

“How silly,” Roth told CNN host Audie Cornish in response to a question about Harvard’s new policy on statements.

“If he wins and you say the wrong thing, they will come after you,” Roth added. “If you say nothing, they won’t come after you. They’ll just come after your undocumented students. They may come after your gay students. They will come after your students of color.”

Feldman also pointed to the number of colleges and universities that have followed Harvard’s lead in implementing policies that discourage school leaders from issuing official statements on politically divisive topics.

At least 20 colleges and universities, including Cornell University and the University of Pennsylvania, have adopted new policies that appear to be inspired by Harvard’s Institutional Voice Working Group. And several other universities, including Yale University, have formed committees to consider related moves.

“I am heartened that so many other universities either have adopted similar policies or are in the process of considering doing so,” Feldman said.

—Staff writer Emma H. Haidar can be reached at emma.haidar@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @HaidarEmma.

—Staff writer Cam E. Kettles can be reached at cam.kettles@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cam_kettles or on Threads @camkettles.