{shortcode-6ea646cc3b981682ba0f68caed7672b58bf6880f}

Harvard students don’t know how to talk to each other.

Countless surveys, speeches, and reports all come to the same conclusion: Harvard is polarized and has been so for a while. The University’s efforts to bridge this divide, though steadfast, have been unfortunately misguided.

In recent years, the College has championed “Intellectual Vitality” — an initiative designed to engage students in civil discourse — among other efforts, in hopes of inspiring a unilateral campus culture change. But a top-down approach isn’t going to fix the issue.

By trying to solve a large political problem with brute force, Harvard is biting off more than it can chew. Instead, we should focus on the smaller steps we can take to foster community among students. Respectful disagreement starts with trust that can only be built on interpersonal relationships.

Polarization on college campuses is nothing new — the disconnect between students has long been documented and acknowledged. In 2023, a mere 46 percent of surveyed seniors felt comfortable expressing controversial opinions. In 2024, the figure dropped to a precarious 33 percent. Meanwhile, in The Crimson’s opinion pages, writers have lamented the death of free speech and expressed concerns about cancel culture time and time again. Faculty and administrators have made concerted efforts to discuss the erosion of academic freedom and recommit Harvard to a thriving culture of open inquiry.

The common throughline? Students who disagree politically can’t find a way to connect and discuss with one another.

In light of campus events, we might expect divisions among students: Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel prompted varied and often conflicting reactions among large swaths of students, as did the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.

But student divisions are compounded by similar splits seen across the nation. Within both the Democratic and Republican parties, shifts farther left and farther right are at record highs. Polarization is a problem larger than Harvard.

Naturally, disagreement alone isn’t a bad thing. Indeed, a variety of opinions and perspectives has always been a key factor to a flourishing academic environment. The problem begins when the people disagreeing can’t connect, so they stop making an effort on both fronts. Our distance in perspective is soured by our distance from one another.

The University has tried to solve the problem, having organized a civil discourse conference through the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, hosted events featuring speakers from opposite sides of the aisle, and even assigned modules designed to teach incoming undergraduates how to engage in respectful discourse. But administrators can’t expect campus values to fundamentally change overnight with their newest bullet-pointed list in the newest email from their newest department/office/initiative.

Harvard has been addressing the wrong layer of the problem. Students can’t learn to respectfully disagree if they don’t even know with whom they’re disagreeing. In 2024, more than a quarter of surveyed seniors said they only liked to engage socially with people who share their political beliefs. In the classroom, we criticize a lack of speech. But outside of the classroom, we make no efforts to engage with our peers.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither will bridges between students. As both a University and a student body, we need to focus our efforts on engaging with smaller communities around campus and the one-on-one interactions between students, inside and outside of the classroom.

Change isn’t going to come from sweeping administrative proclamations or poorly-attended speaker events — it is far easier to disagree respectfully with those with whom you share a rapport. Instead, Harvard should encourage students to engage more with their peers — especially those with whom they disagree — by sponsoring more specific social programming.

Such events could take the shape of regular class nights designed to connect peers in the same grade with one another. At present, students engage with their class during freshman year, largely disengage for two years, and return for senior week just before graduation.

Good discourse requires good communication. It’s easy to be unengaged and reactionary when discussing controversial topics with a virtual stranger. However, when you see someone as a fellow community member, someone with whom you share an actual connection, you are in turn more inclined to respect and listen to them. Through community, communication prospers.

Want to help improve Harvard’s speech culture? Befriending your class by going to your entryway meeting or grabbing coffee with a friend you only see in section will do more than a module titled “Perspectives.” It can look like participating in silly ice breaker conversations on the first day of section or reaching out to an old classmate whose political opinions differ from your own. Harvard won’t have a harmonious community until we start treating each other as people rather than political affiliations.

So, this semester, remember all the small things you can do to build community, too. In this case, it is going small — not big — that will create a better home for discourse.

Margot I. Cerbone ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Mather House.