{shortcode-784dfc76b2f074d2f4b3f93a6f082bd6d83617e3}

A Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee released a report Friday concluding that many Harvard College students self-censor when discussing controversial topics and frequently prioritize extracurricular commitments over their academics.

The committee recommended strengthening course attendance requirements, discouraging phone use in class, standardizing grading, and amending student and faculty handbooks to include a classroom confidentiality policy.

The group — dubbed the Classroom Social Compact Committee — was convened by FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra in February during a moment of both hand-wringing and soul-searching over the state of free speech on Harvard’s campus.

And its report comes amid a wider push from faculty to bring students back into the classroom amid complaints that students underemphasize academics and seek out easier courses.

“Many Harvard College students do not prioritize their courses and some view extensive extracurricular commitments as a more fulfilling, meaningful, and useful allocation of their time,” the report’s authors wrote. “Most faculty view student curricular disengagement with alarm.”

The committee, led by History professor Maya R. Jasanoff ’96 and Economics professor David I. Laibson ’88, was tasked with developing guidelines for student engagement and classroom dialogue. Its seven members conducted more than 30 listening sessions and reviewed 11 surveys of students, faculty, and alumni, including undergraduate course evaluations.

FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra endorsed the committee’s recommendations in a letter to Jasanoff and Laibson, writing that they “promise to bring us closer to a learning environment that is worthy of Harvard and aligned with what are emerging as our shared aspirations as a faculty.”

The report concluded that some undergraduates avoid politically fraught conversations, opting instead to socialize and take courses with like-minded peers and instructors. Only 33 percent of graduating College students feel free to express their views on controversial issues, according to a 2024 survey of graduating seniors cited in the report.

Though the committee did not collect quantitative data on extracurricular involvement, the group found in listening sessions that students frequently prioritize activities over their academics, Laibson said in an interview Friday.

“Students are hungry for pre-professional guidance and seek it outside the classroom and curriculum,” the report read.

The committee’s findings on student disengagement with courses follows several initiatives across the University aimed at refocusing students on academics. Last spring, the College’s Program in General Education updated its guidelines to standardize grading across amid concerns that students treated Gen Ed courses as easy A’s.

The FAS voted in December to amend the Harvard College Handbook so that students who miss more than two weeks of class will be placed on involuntary leave beginning next year.

In its Friday report, the committee recommended that instructors mandate class attendance — except in courses approved for asynchronous enrollment — and stated that professors “are under no obligation” to provide make-up opportunities for student absences, including job interviews and travel for athletic events.

The committee also urged the FAS to consider standardizing grading scales and workload expectations across departments, divisions, and schools.

The report suggested instituting a new digital device policy which would heavily discourage students from using cell phones and other internet-enabled devices in class, except when given explicit permission by an instructor or to accommodate a disability.

Undergraduates whose responses were reviewed by the committee reported hesitation to speak up in class for fear of flubbing responses or posing questions with obvious answers. Graduate students likewise reported pressure to appear as if they had already mastered course material.

Some undergraduates reported picking classes that reinforce their preexisting opinions or else aim for higher grades by answering assignments in line with their instructors’ perceived politics.

Meanwhile, graduate teaching fellows in College courses said they worried undergraduates attributed low grades to TF bias, rather than the quality of their work, and felt unable to provide critical feedback to students without jeopardizing their teaching evaluations.

The report proposed student and faculty handbook amendments that would explicitly bar grading based on political beliefs.

“Student speech, assignments, and exams can be evaluated by instructors as factually incorrect or poorly argued, for example — but a student’s status in a course, including their grades, will not be affected by their political or ethical point of view,” the new language reads.

The committee also recommended updating the handbooks to adopt the Chatham House Rule, which allows students and instructors to share the contents of classroom discussions but not the names of speakers. In October, the University-wide Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group issued a similar endorsement of classroom non-attribution policies, which are already in place at three Harvard schools.

Some of the committee’s recommendations will be considered at Tuesday’s meeting of the FAS, including the proposed handbook updates, which also explicitly establish an expectation that students “prioritize their coursework.”

The FAS will vote on the handbook changes in March.

Other recommendations — like standardized grading and the digital device policy — may be delegated to working groups or addressed at a later date.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.