It’s Our Turn To Save Harvard’s Speech Culture

As if Harvard’s speech culture hasn’t been lambasted enough, new data has added more fuel to the fire.

The University’s 2024 senior survey reported that only one-third of graduating seniors felt comfortable expressing their opinions about controversial topics during their time at Harvard, a 13 percent decrease from the previous year’s class. This discomfort was disproportionately experienced by conservative students on campus: only 17 percent of conservative students reported feeling comfortable discussing controversial topics, compared to 25 percent of moderates and 41 of liberals.

While the survey results might not surprise you, the group responsible might. And no — this time, Harvard’s not to blame. While it’s true that Harvard’s not perfect — as some recent, high-profile lapses make clear — many of Harvard’s actions have quietly moved it in the right direction of rectifying speech culture.

Now, students bear the onus of ensuring Harvard’s attempts bear fruit — and that starts by leaning into discomfort and welcoming challenging conversations.

Many of the University’s efforts to foster open discourse on campus are laudable. It convened the Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue working group. Another committee explicitly clarified faculty should not grade based on political views (though the clarification is useful, we can’t recall the existence of such a practice). The OICD group supported the Chatham House Rule, a policy that prevents students and instructors from attributing statements shared in classrooms to particular speakers.

While far from perfect and certainly not exhaustive, these policies demonstrate Harvard’s ostensible commitment to creating a campus speech culture that welcomes and encourages diverse views on a wide range of topics. But while such policies don’t hurt, they don’t seem to strike at the heart of the issue itself.

The 2024 survey reported students felt uncomfortable expressing their opinions primarily because they feared being criticized or labeled offensive by their peers. Rather than backlash from professors or the University itself, social consequences appear to be the root of students’ self-censorship.

If students are the problem, they must also be the solution.

Instead of gossiping about classmates’ controversial takes and attacking each other for speech that falls outside of the ideological mainstream, we must channel these impulses into productive — and necessarily uncomfortable — conversations.

Reforming a speech culture notorious for its lack of quality requires epistemic humility. It feels obvious to say, but sometimes, the obvious must be said: The views of others should not be rejected a priori. Listen before you engage. At the very least, you will learn something about a view you disagree with.

Alongside increased openness to engagement, we must embrace the irony of being comfortable with discomfort. Embracing the discomfort of a difficult yet respectful conversation is the difference between chilling speech and amplifying it. Fear doesn’t do anyone any good. Discomfort, on the other hand, catalyzes learning. If no risks are taken, no conversations are had.

So — engage with your peers and teachers with whom you disagree. Challenge one another. Tell others what you believe and why, and listen generously to those you hear. And the next time you disagree with someone, try not to post about them on Sidechat.

Be open, be honest, and welcome discomfort. It will benefit us all — liberal and conservative alike.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.