We were disappointed by the Board’s assumption today that the Council of Academic Freedom at Harvard’s mission is not a genuine effort to support academic freedom. By calling the council’s explanation for its formation “dishonest” and thereby assuming malicious intent from the signatories, the Board has failed to practice the very credit and kindness it has called upon others to extend in civil discourse.
While taking a class about the Holocaust is educational, seeing a cattle car where Jews were packed like sardines, and transported for days without food or water and only a bucket for excrement, is unforgettable. Touring a concentration camp where Jews were brutally suffocated in specially built gas chambers is very different from reading the number six million.
Morality extends far beyond people’s career choices: Individuals can still be good people if they work in profit-driven sectors like big tech. As long as our peers are not doing evil things, we see no reason to censure their post-graduation choices.
Improving discourse at Harvard is necessary both for our own intellectual growth and for our contribution to society. It is a cause that we should pursue not only in our own self-interest, but also for the sake of others.
Broadening political representation in Harvard’s faculty is no easy feat, but as students who desire a robust education, we should not settle for homogeneity in our classrooms. Diversity in all its forms was never meant to be easy, but that does not mean we shouldn’t try.
Midterm elections are less than a week away, and politicians on both sides of the aisle are preemptively casting doubt about election results — about this cycle and in general.
While I wish we had never published our BDS editorial last semester, I will forever defend my peers’ right to publish their views. I just wish they would extend the same courtesy to their critics.
We are dismayed to see our peers bring Mohammed El-Kurd to speak to our campus. We find their willingness to invite such a noxious figure into our midst appalling. Thou shalt not stand idly by.
As the search for the University’s next president progresses, Harvard has the opportunity to rectify a historical wrong and atone for a blight on its record, while addressing a larger disturbing trend about academic free expression. The time has come to lead colleges in academic speech, to return “semper” to “semper veritas.” Harvard’s atmosphere is ripe for a change of weather. Anything less would be disloyal to our motto.
With Harvard in the news and affirmative action on the chopping block, it makes sense why discussions about admissions are focused on race. But we should not forget that Harvard’s current admissions process falls short of providing diversity in college and equity during the admissions process. Regardless of the SFFA case outcome, we can call upon Harvard to admit more low-income students.
The blinkered liberal hold on Harvard’s academics must be relaxed if the school hopes to promote an honest and open discussion of ideas. Our future citizen leaders are here — it is now time to begin educating them.
Jokes That Aren’t Funny: Racism and Harassment in Student Traditions
Who Can Be ‘Racist’?
What the Hell Happened: Taylor Swift Surprise-Drops “Wildest Dreams (Taylor’s Version)”
Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree Jr., ‘Renaissance Lawyer’ and Staunch Civil Rights Defender, Dies at 70
Harvard Overhauls College Application in Wake of Affirmative Action Decision