{shortcode-4fb9456949437f942c7e5030cb61ddc5e871e461}

Protest is a sign of a healthy speech culture, and Harvard is not well.

Protests at Harvard are almost as old as the University itself. Our student body has always been impassioned and, at times, quite audacious in its demonstrations — look no further than when the entire sophomore class dropped out in 1819 to protest poor cabbage soup quality. Over the years, Harvard students have rallied for causes both local and national including peace in Vietnam, the end of apartheid in South Africa, and improved wages for University workers.

And for most of the turbulent last couple years, this tradition lived on strongly. However, in recent months, University and Trump administration policies have dampened the spirit of demonstration on campus.

Just two years ago, with Israel’s initial ground invasion of Gaza looming, a pro-Palestine rally on Widener Steps drew over 1,000 attendees. However, this semester — even after a United Nations Commission concurred with the longheld view of campus organizers and myself that Israel is committing genocide — there have been no major student rallies in support of Palestine at Harvard.

This absence is not due to diminished resolve — the organizers I know remain as impassioned as ever. The issue is that the risks of and barriers to vocal pro-Palestine speech have become far too high.

For instance, participants in the 2024 pro-Palestine encampment in Harvard Yard initially received notably harsher punishment than in comparable past protests like the 1986 anti-South African apartheid “Shantytown” and the 2001 multi-week occupation of Massachusetts Hall for higher wages. These punishments were only walked back after significant outcry from students and rebuke from faculty. Harvard has vastly expanded restrictions on protests since October 2023, and in April placed the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee on probation for a rally it did not host — likely a form of precautionary capitulation to the Trump administration.

The Trump administration has added a much more existential threat to pro-Palestine speech. From Mahmoud Khalil to Rumeyza Ozturk, the federal government has targeted pro-Palestine international students for detention or removal. Even in light of a recent ruling that Trump’s ideological deportations are unconstitutional, the erratic and autocratic nature of the Trump administration will likely continue to evoke fear of speaking out. Harvard and Trump have both stymied public dissent on Palestine.

Palestine is not the only issue with diminished engagement. When Trump threatened to revoke Harvard’s ability to host international students in April, over 500 affiliates and community members rallied in Harvard Yard. This demonstration came mere days after another rally in Cambridge Common calling on Harvard to defy Trump also drew north of 500 attendees.

This fall, however, a rally hosted by Harvard Students for Freedom following Harvard’s victory in its funding lawsuit featured only about 80 attendees. By contrast, the group’s event in May drew 300 people, even after most students had left campus.

Alongside harsh restrictions on protest, Harvard stifles discourse with its silence about myriad controversial campus reforms. Harvard has publicly opposed Trump both rhetorically and in court while making significant changes in private: Offices for queer students and women on campus have been shuttered, a decades-old minority recruitment program has been cut — all the while the University keeps its affiliates in the dark about its true intentions.

This week, when asked about such closings, Harvard College Dean David J. Deming declined to provide rationale, stating he was focused on the “needs of our students” rather than the “larger dialogue around these issues.” Even with existential threats to Harvard and higher education, what can students rally for or against when university administrators will not tell us what is actually happening?

It is deeply concerning when a university with such a storied history of activism falls quiet at one of its watershed moments. Students are still taking action — pro-Palestine organizations continue to raise funds for families in Gaza, for example — but a Harvard without banners, chants, and megaphones is a Harvard without a heartbeat.

The University has committed itself to “Intellectual Vitality” to promote challenging conversations on campus. But to be vital means to be lively and active — Harvard cannot fully dedicate itself to such an ideal while stifling the voices of students most active for the causes they care about.

The University must walk back its protest restrictions, resume open and honest dialogue with students, and — though largely out of its control — protect speech on campus from Trump’s ire as much as possible. Dissent must be able to flow freely on campus.

With era-defining issues and a centuries-old legacy at stake, Harvard students must be allowed to get angry — and should be angrier that they cannot.

Adam N. Chiocco ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Pforzheimer House.