{shortcode-25f6dec49f2681fbeafc52999652016973642d8a}

Harvard is an extremely diverse institution in many respects. People of various races, ethnicities, nationalities, religions, gender identities, and socioeconomic statuses converge on our campus, interweaving to form the beautiful tapestry that is this university.

We’re fortunate in this way — learning in a diverse setting undoubtedly improves the quality of education for us students. Exposure to unfamiliar ideas and different ways of life broadens horizons and makes us all the more receptive to new ideas. As Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana wrote after the fall of race-based affirmative action, “Diverse learning communities are essential to the College’s mission of educating citizens and citizen leaders.”

Yet Harvard’s commitment to diversity seems to stop short of ideology.

In a country where conservatives make up roughly one-third of the population, Harvard’s dearth of conservatism stands out. Conservatives make up a tiny fraction of Harvard’s student body and an even tinier fraction of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences — less than ten and five percent, respectively.

The College’s intellectual vitality initiative, launched earlier this year, is an attempt to improve campus discourse by encouraging more open and constructive engagement. I am relieved that it acknowledges that this is no small task, but rather one that requires a “comprehensive plan for culture change.” Yet I fear that, despite its good intentions, the campaign can’t make up for the simple fact that there just aren’t very many opportunities for constructive dialogue when the student body is so one-sided on most issues.

Granted, this is nothing new. Higher education — elite higher education in particular — has long been a bastion of liberal and progressive ideology. The extreme Harvard has allowed this dynamic to reach, however, feels inconsistent with its core values. One would think that after a years-long court battle in defense of admissions practices aimed at improving diversity, it — and peer institutions — would strive to achieve all forms of diversity.

That Harvard should strive for diversity of thought follows from the very same logic underlying its support for diversity of other kinds. And if anything, ideological diversity might be the single most important kind for achieving the benefits Harvard has in mind. One’s horizons can only be broadened so far if they remain in a group whose members — although racially, geographically, religiously, and sexually diverse — all share the same or very similar fundamental beliefs.

What’s more, the lack of ideological diversity doubtless contributes to the self-censorship that students and faculty reported partaking in when they think their views might be frowned upon by progressives. A 2023 Harvard Kennedy School study, for example, found that self-censorship was significantly more common among socially conservative faculty at Western institutions than among their socially liberal peers. Whether or not one truly believes in “cancel culture” or sees it as a bogeyman conjured by the right, the genuine fear of incurring its wrath that these scholars appear to display should nonetheless be alarming.

I can speak to this self-censorship firsthand. I consider myself just right of center — or in Harvard terms, far-right. And I can recall numerous times when I changed what I wanted to say or chose to remain silent in academic settings, often because I knew my classmates would look at me differently, and sometimes because I didn't want to be the sole standard-bearer for the non-liberal perspective.

In the latter situations, I knew that the others with whom I was engaging did not hold beliefs outside of progressive orthodoxy (or did not want to let others know that they did), so it would fall to me and only me to respond to all of the group’s questions and criticisms. I learned after a few of these interactions that it was tiring and oftentimes not worth the effort.

Not only does this hinder the learning experience of all who reside within the ideological monolith that is blue Harvard, but it also negatively impacts those of us who fall outside. Our self-censorship forecloses the opportunity for our own perspectives to be further developed and nuanced in the best academic forum in the world.

Moreover, many of my more conservative peers silo themselves in social circles, clubs, and societies that are almost exclusively composed of other conservatives. I can understand why they choose to self-segregate — being in the extreme minority can be deeply frustrating — but, ironically, it means conservative groups face the same problem as our liberal campus: Little-to-no ideological diversity.

Regardless of how successful the College’s intellectual vitality initiative is, the essential cause of Harvard’s issues with discourse on campus — a glaring lack of ideological diversity — remains.

For now, the College ought to stop paying lip service to the nebulous idea of diversity in all forms and instead actively commit itself to fulfilling this goal that it claims is so central to its mission.

This commitment could look like seeking out applicants from regions which are traditionally more conservative, highlighting conservative programming so that nonliberal prospective applicants are aware that they can find opportunity and community on campus, and uplifting and promoting conservative voices.

Until then, a truly diverse Harvard is nothing more than a fantasy.

Henry P. Moss IV ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a History concentrator in Eliot House.