{shortcode-3d665f1f638bc7f29bd05f52f3f25f3515fc60af}

At Harvard, we are often told we can change the world.

My peers and I have taken the message to heart, organizing around the issues of our day, volunteering in political elections, and protesting the violence in Gaza. Yet, frustratingly, the noble causes of progressive student activism has not prevented us from falling into the trap of self-righteous campaigning.

From using unnecessary inflammatory language to boycotting the press over claims of “bias,” pro-Palestine activists on our campus attempting to promote a liberated Palestine have ineffectively advocated their cause. Forcing individuals to choose between the labels “pro-Palestine” and “pro-Israel” has alienated many people who support the right of Israel to exist, but not the actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Not only is this unfair to good-faith activists; it pushes away potential coalition members.

This problem extends beyond our student body. Ineffective phrases calling for political change like “defund the police” and “abolish ICE,” have promoted the idea that change is only possible if we totally revolutionize the system.

Just look at what Columbia University’s Students for Justice in Palestine said in a recent statement: “True divestment necessitates nothing short of the total collapse of the university structure and American empire itself.”

Think for a second: Are we really gonna burn the whole thing to the ground tomorrow?

This irrational sentiment was present at Vice President Kamala Harris’s recent rally in Detroit, Michigan.

Prior to the rally, Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), met with members of the Uncommitted Movement, a national pro-Palestine campaign, to discuss her policy on the Israel-Gaza war and the prospect of an arms embargo. Such a meeting is undoubtedly a win for the movement, and opens the opportunity for actual action and advocacy from the potential future president.

Despite this, just hours later, organizers heckled Harris at the rally with one of the most extreme accusations: “Kamala, Kamala, you can’t hide. We won’t vote for genocide.” To heckle a leader with such drastic criticism — one who just agreed to meet to discuss the issue of your choice — defies logic. It is a display of naivete, rather than dedication to a cause.

We saw this extreme activism play out on our very own campus last spring. During the encampment in Harvard Yard, members of Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine demanded the University unilaterally suspend all investments in Israeli-tied assets. Throughout the year, University leadership made it clear that divestment was not a viable option.

Rather than switching their primary efforts to raising funds for Gaza relief efforts or educating peers about viable human rights-centered candidates for elected office, activists continued to ineffectively advocate an unreachable goal. At the same time, some activists vehemently attacked the same administrators they needed to convince — despite the fact that such demonization makes negotiation much more difficult.

Simply put, calling for divestment is far easier than actually doing anything to promote it. So is calling for a ceasefire.

We must prevent ourselves from framing complex issues as ones that can be achieved with relatively simple solutions. While the issue of divestment is one worthy of serious consideration, it should not be seen as the only route to empowering Palestinians.

Young people today have grown accustomed to advocacy for change. While it is important we raise our voice, we must use it efficiently and effectively.

Just as our elected officials are not above criticism, neither are our activists, no matter how virtuous their cause.

If we are going to fulfill Harvard’s goal of changing the world, young people must take a more pragmatic approach toward transforming our political system. We must stand against attempts to make elections and formative decisions about the future of our nation solely about one issue. The collateral impact of our advocacy must be considered in our choices when we vote, speak out, and advocate.

Harvard students are often seen as the future citizen-leaders of tomorrow, and so we must treat that designation — whether warranted or not — with extreme care. We are in an extraordinary position to generate change within our society, but we must remember that we do not represent the majority of Americans.

Most Americans are worried about how to put food on the table, how to leave wealth for their grandchildren, how to pay the bills due at the end of the month. To brand our causes as the end all be all, washed in morality arguments and academic language, only distances us more from the standard concerns of our communities.

In order to be proactive, effective, and representative advocates, we must start by having the tough conversations. We must exit the ideological echo chamber of modern internet-era activism that has become entrenched in our campus and other progressive spaces.

Whether we will take this step — or continue our self-righteous forms of advocacy — is a question that only time will tell.

M. Austen Wyche ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Winthrop House.