{shortcode-4feb46091b7bd41486eb8333d2af172556455c11}

Harvard preaches free speech, but fails to live up to these ideals.

Two weeks ago, The Crimson reported that Harvard Medical School administrators nixed a potential speaker for their 2024 Class Day due to concerns over her pro-Palestine posts on social media. In their justification, the Medical School cited a desire to avoid the perception of aligning with a public stance on the war in Gaza as a significant influence on the choice of speaker.

But concerns about public image don’t erase the fact that administrators chose to stifle a speaker’s voice to prevent the expression of a legitimate, albeit controversial, perspective. By deplatforming a potential speaker, Harvard has contradicted the values it purports to hold.

Over the past year and a half, Harvard has championed “Intellectual Vitality,” an initiative aiming to encourage the free exchange of ideas on campus. From requiring first-year students to engage in an orientation module from the Constructive Dialogue Institute to creating a student advisory board to promote discourse initiatives, Harvard has introduced a variety of measures aimed at facilitating conversations, promoting constructive disagreement, and exposing students to different ideas.

When we deplatform speakers, no matter how inflammatory their perspective might be, we start down a slippery slope of speech suppression.

Yet others may argue that the Medical School’s decision was wise considering the popular criticism that Harvard has allowed pro-Palestinian activism to run rampant, the University cannot preach the ideals of free speech, and then ignore them whenever it is politically expedient. Critics will likely point to Harvard’s position of institutional neutrality as a prudent reason to cancel the graduation speaker, but there was no indication she would be discussing Pro-Palestine speech. Even if she did, that should be within her discretion to do so.

Institutional neutrality should not be used as a pretext to deplatform a speaker solely based on her ideology.

Free speech, as defined by our legal system, includes the right not to speak, the right to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey messages, and the right to engage in symbolic protest. Even if private universities aren’t directly bound by the First Amendment in the same way as public institutions, they should still seek to emulate it.

Throughout my life, I have sat through numerous speeches I vehemently disagreed with. From listening to politicians at the Institute of Politics to attending the House Oversight Committee and watching Jim Jordan (R-OH) discuss R. Hunter Biden, engaging with different perspectives has proven to be a valuable experience. Even if you fundamentally disagree on the worldview of another person, hearing the formulation of their ideas can help you clarify and better defend your own arguments.

Even if a speaker at an event makes a controversial statement — perceived as the truth by some and offensive by others — it offers an opportunity for us all to reconsider our own perspectives.

Intellectual vitality calls for the fundamental principle of uncomfortability. To challenge one’s own perspective requires one to actively consider opposing viewpoints and how other individuals come to their own, different, conclusions. What better way to exercise that ability than by listening to a speech with which you fundamentally disagree?

HMS’ decision raises important questions about what speech Harvard will and will not allow. If former President Barack Obama desired to give a speech at a Harvard commencement ceremony, should we reject the offer based on the idea that we would be politically aligning our University with the Democratic Party? Similarly, if former CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky wanted to address the T.H. Chan School of Public Health, would it be acceptable to advertise an official whose tenure was politically controversial due to tensions over the Covid-19 epidemic?

Of course not. Just because pro-Palestine speech is more controversial than these examples, that does not mean we should hold it to a different standard. This is the fundamental premise of free speech Harvard fails to commit to — the willingness to broadcast speech that may be controversial or even offensive to some.

As Harvard continues to pursue intellectual vitality, the culture of free speech on our campus must be fundamentally revitalized. We must commit ourselves to hearing different viewpoints, no matter how detestable we find them to be. With the exception of violence-inducing speech, opening our ears to diverse viewpoints — instead of filtering our platforms to only those we find acceptable — will promote true intellectual curiosity.

Harvard has espoused a commitment to fostering an educational environment with free speech. To truly accomplish this mission, the University must follow through on its promises, no matter how difficult it becomes.

M. Austen Wyche ’27, an Associate Editorial editor, is an Economics concentrator in Winthrop House.