Harvard Should Not Curb Enterprising Student Travel

To the editors:



While we agree with the Crimson staff editorial “No House Arrests” (Jan. 12) that the detention of Amar C. Bakshi ’06 in Zimbabwe must not result in the College re-tightening its travel policy, we disagree with the staff’s outlined reasons.

The editorial stated that Bakshi’s ordeal should not concern Harvard because it was self-financed and because, under the current policy, it is debatable whether research in a country like Zimbabwe would be eligible for Harvard funding anyway.

This argument ignores the main reason why, last spring, we helped rally 400 students across the campus to call for a more open travel policy. We argued that academic research into global trouble-spots is imperative today, especially as international tensions rise. We, as students, refused to sit idly by, and rallied for support in our efforts to help address—on some small scale—the grave challenges our world faces, from Zimbabwe to Venezuela, from Nepal to Israel. Our labors, we believe, can make a difference.

By supporting its students, Harvard contributes to understanding both at the global level and, more noticeably, at the undergraduate level. When writing on events such as the recent brutal house demolitions in Zimbabwe’s “Clean Up,” it helps immeasurably to have spoken directly to the victims while standing beside the rubble of their homes. Sections are brought to life by these student experiences, adding what no library book can. Bakshi took this risk.

Not wishing to do so because one cannot reconcile the benefits with the potential risks is understandable, but not when it is due to simple lack or stifling of interest. Some students are willing to place themselves beyond Harvard’s borders and to listen to and amplify subdued voices. These students must be actively supported, not explained away.

The College must support travel such as Bakshi’s and even take some role in securing back-up contacts for its students abroad, especially in trouble-spots.

One can never entirely remove the risks of research. Probing questions might elicit outraged, defensive responses from those exploiting power. But research can open space for dialogue—the very thing we, as academics, ostensibly work for. In the face of adversity, we must not forget why many of us are here—to help improve this world through our work—and we must not stifle the urgency of our intellectual pursuits.



PROUD DZAMBUKIRA ’07

RANGARIRAI M. MLAMBO ’07



February 2, 2006