{shortcode-8f46286599460beea3852917907b9d21c69badb4}

We all know that the Harvard name carries weight. It’s probably why many of us chose to go to school here.

One effect of this weight is that we are paid more attention because of our connection to Harvard. Student accomplishments, Crimson articles, and speaker events here transcend the confines of our campus, often receiving national recognition.

To some degree, this platformed, outsized focus makes sense. Harvard is one of the most difficult schools in the United States to be accepted to, and students and faculty here do tend to be quite accomplished. It’s not that uncommon to be in section with a Rhodes Scholar or befriend one of our campus’s International Mathematical Olympiad medalists.

But far too often, it seems that our prestige is taken as an imperfect proxy for the importance or validity of what we as Harvard affiliates have to say.

This heuristic has serious consequences for the ensuing discourse. Instead of the best or most relevant ideas getting the most attention, it seems the ones with the Harvard name attached are often prioritized. Such an unnecessary overvaluing of specific perspectives limits the diversity of viewpoints and experiences contributing to collective understanding. The conversations that follow often lack authenticity.

Take, for example, a common trend we see in the media: “Harvard study says X.” But there is nothing about a study coming from our school that makes it inherently better than a study from anywhere else. Ideas in academia are governed by peer review. A study shouldn’t be valued just because it comes from Harvard.

This dynamic can inadvertently create a dangerous hierarchy, where research from so-called prestigious institutions is placed on a pedestal, overshadowing equally important work from other universities. This narrows the field of discourse by implicitly suggesting that the most valuable knowledge and insights are confined to a few institutions.

The scale of such a narrowing puts the focus on Harvard into an alarming perspective. As of 2022, Harvard has only 25,000 students across the College and all of its graduate schools; in the 2020-21 academic year, community colleges enrolled 8.9 million students. Nevertheless, community colleges are talked about in the media far less than Harvard. Do we really believe that none of these schools have students worth talking to, or events worth hearing about, over ours?

As another example, the media’s disproportionate focus on the statement authored by the Harvard Undergraduate Palestinian Solidarity Committee, despite it expressing broadly an opinion shared by student groups at other colleges, has skewed the national discourse. Harvard College students have received much of the attention and much of the consequences. But to truly understand pro-Palestine student activism at colleges, looking just at what happened at Harvard doesn’t provide a complete picture.

Harvard College is not reflective of our nation or its diversity; it is reflective of privilege. The College may tout diversity and strong financial aid for low-income students. But in 2017, there were about as many students here in the top 1 percent by income as the bottom 60 percent. In 2018, 71 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Native American students here came from the top 20 percent by income of their respective racial groups. The overcoverage of Harvard, whether intentional or not, results in caring more about the voice of the already privileged than the truly marginalized.

And when it comes down to it, Harvard students are just college kids. What we say or do here shouldn’t be treated differently than if we went anywhere else. The musings of a group of 20-somethings shouldn’t garner national attention just because of a name atop their resumes.

If individuals do pay attention to our campus, they should at least interpret what goes on here in broader terms.

Critical thinking should always extend beyond the Harvard name. We should cite the best studies, with the strongest methodologies and results — not the ones from the most prestigious schools. We should widen the scope of commentary on issues in national discourse — not confine our analysis to a couple of highly popularized case studies.

When we unnecessarily value certain perspectives the way many so often do with Harvard, we promote a kind of inadvertent censorship where important ideas and voices go unheard.

For us here at Harvard, it’s also important to recognize that our statements are paid disproportionately more attention to. Accordingly, we have a responsibility to use these platforms wisely. We need to understand that what we say has consequences, and we should speak knowing that people are listening.

With that in mind, we also should recognize that just because we’re paid more attention doesn’t mean we’re more correct. Just as the public shouldn’t take us too seriously, neither should we.

Milo J. Clark ’24 is a Physics concentrator in Lowell House. Tyler S. Young ’26 is a joint concentrator in Electrical Engineering and Chemistry & Physics in Leverett House. Their column, “Voices Unbound,” runs bi-weekly on Tuesdays.

{shortcode-48fea5ca02b1d3771bdbe9a33ec24e215aa40806}