Tactless, But True

Two silver keys, two seals of the University, the earliest College record book, and the Harvard Charter of 1650: these were the symbols of power transferred from former presidents Summers, Bok, and Rudenstine and Senior Fellow James R. Houghton ’58 to President Drew G. Faust last Friday as she was officially installed. It was a formal, yet ebullient and optimistic day: one for reflecting on the forces that unite this great University and that will propel it to new heights in the future.

In this context, the fiery speech that Undergraduate Council President Ryan A. Petersen ’08 delivered criticizing the College administration was inappropriate and wholly out of character with the spirit of the occasion. Charged with speaking on behalf of students at the College and all of the graduate schools, Petersen’s tactless rhetoric undermined the many legitimate points he made and rendered us embarrassed to be among the constituency that he purported to represent.

The hero of Petersen’s speech was the “student-citizen,” who, as a member of the Harvard community, pledged “civic engagement” through activism and “the principles of free inquiry and open debate.” It was the power of the student-citizen, argued Petersen, that fomented change in Harvard’s institutional policies, like the academic calendar, and moral issues, like divesting from organizations tied to Sudan. Yet, students “have been frustrated at many turns” in efforts for change, said Petersen, and “this process of decisions made behind closed doors, this disempowerment of students, this denial of citizenship—must end now.”

Petersen’s point was a valid and important one. The lack of student input in major university decisions continues to affect the community. For example, as Petersen pointed out the Administrative Board, an assembly of more than 30 faculty and administrators that adjudicates “academic regulations” and “standards of social conduct,” does not have any student members. Mature and responsible students on the board would bring a new and valuable perspective to a process that has often been criticized for its opacity.

Nevertheless, such reform will not happen through the tactics Petersen employed on Friday. The press release from the Office of the President described the ceremony as an opportunity to “participate in the historic rites and wish the new president well.” As one of only six speakers offering greetings on behalf of different constituencies, Petersen’s role should have been one of support. He was there not only as an usher, welcoming Faust’s leadership, but also as a symbol of students’ singular role in this community of scholars.

With his criticism, Petersen deliberately shunned this historic role—he is only the second student known to have spoken at a Harvard presidential installation—and implicitly rejected the mutual responsibility of the student citizenship he discussed. Some would argue that the installation was exactly the forum for “free inquiry and open debate” that Petersen described. But the hostile criticism that he used in his speech only served to chill future prospects for such engagement: the ceremony of the day was not about an exchange between faculty and students. It was about a University leader who pledged to “recognize our accountability to the wider world”—a wider world that includes students.

Though an august institution, Harvard still needs constant reminding of the central role that students play in its present and future. Petersen’s choice to use polemical, inflammatory, and divisive language on a day meant to celebrate the unity and greatness of Harvard, likely alienated the many faculty and administrators who agree with him about the importance of student input and undermined the rapport that must be established if meaningful reform is to occur.