Harvard University.
For nearly 400 years, it’s been the gold standard in higher education, and the brand is synonymous with excellence, prestige, and power. Until about 100 days ago, it seemed an impregnable fortress that would forever occupy pole position- not only in pedestrian places like university rankings; but more importantly, the gateway for those who desire access to the good life.
It also happens to be my alma mater. The four years I spent there as an undergraduate fulfilled nearly all the impossibly high expectations my family and I had for it. The experience of those four years has only been surpassed by the myriad of economic and vocational opportunities that are afforded to someone with 02138 pedigree. For me personally, there is no doubt that Harvard made good on its promises, and validated the esteemed position that it holds in our public consciousness.
Despite all this, since departing nearly 30 years ago, I have been all but disconnected from the institution. Other than a few friendships, Harvard occupies a place in my distant past. The reasons are not relevant at this moment, although I discuss some of them here. But all of that changed in October of 2023 with the events in the Middle East and the subsequent congressional hearings involving the university presidents. Deeper issues inside the institution were exposed, donors began to balk, the applicant pool shrunk, and employers publicly began to question the legitimacy of a Harvard degree. For the first time in anyone’s memory- the university was humbled and started to behave accordingly.
What is the problem?
In my cynical moments, I would often state that Harvard is essentially a multi-strategy hedge fund organized as a 501c(3) that moonlights as a country club and professional networking platform. Somewhere in the lower half of its list of priorities is actually providing a serious education. That isn’t to suggest that education never happens, but they didn’t need to prioritize it because the kind of extraordinarily talented people that Harvard draws would excel no matter what the environment. IMO, this is ground zero for the issues at hand today, an institution that has clearly focused on things other than its stated mission of “promoting enduring knowledge”.
Add to this the basic reality that universities and higher ed have always been on the progressive end of the political spectrum. As I was coming of age, being progressive meant that you questioned the existing power structures whether they were government, big business, or the church. The purpose of a liberal arts education was to develop critical thinking skills, and the old adage was that you went to an elite university to learn how to think, not what to think. Of course, those critical thinking skills were naturally applied to whoever held de facto authority, but they were also applied to all alternatives and contenders for the crown. Someone might appropriately critique capitalism and free markets as a way to organize economic activity, but you would just as quickly critique the merits of government planned economies. All ideas were fair game to be exposed and scrutinized.
The principles that anchored this exchange of ideas was free speech and scientific method. Of course these are loaded terms, but even private institutions like Harvard sought to err on the side of free speech (no matter how offensive) as it had been understood in 1A of our Bill of Rights. What constrained unfettered free speech, beyond just cultural norms of civility, was subjecting one’s hypothesis to observable evidence thus forcing debates to be rooted in reality. Being pro-free speech and pro-scientific method was at the heart of what it meant to be progressive- we arrived at “the truth” through these methods, not because the President or Pope said so.
Somewhere in the last few decades- the term progressive or liberal changed. While they always had a certain bent on “the issues”, they still agreed with classic conservatives on the methods of debate and inquiry. The example of Robert P George (Princeton) and Cornel West’s (Harvard and Union) provides an instructive real-world picture- these are two thinkers who had substantially different takes and policy prescriptions on the hot button issues of our day, but they are united in their faithfulness to an underlying process of free inquiry. And they also happen to be friends.
But increasingly, to be progressive meant a certain desired outcome as opposed to adhering to a process. I’m profoundly sympathetic to the Left’s diagnosis of what ails our society- whether it’s systemic racism, economic injustice, and or the manner in which non-cisgender folk are treated. But the authoritarian manner in which they want their recommended policies enacted betrays the underlying principles that yesterday’s progressives embraced. It has been widely documented that not all points of view are equally welcome on the campus debate floor, and if you’re still getting up to the speed on how this manifested at Harvard, google the names Carol Hooven and Tyler Vanderweele.
The Solution: The Not Too Distant Past
Less than 1 year ago, a group of scholars at Harvard organized themselves into a group called The Council on Academic Freedom (CAF). As of this writing, several hundred professors across the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard’s various professional schools consider themselves members. This is admittedly a small percentage of the thousands of individuals with the title “Harvard Professor”, but they are committed to the following 3 principles:
- Free Inquiry. The Council advocates for academic freedom in teaching, research, and speech for members of the Harvard community.
- Intellectual Diversity. The members of the council believe that Harvard should promote the thoughtful engagement of students and scholars who represent a broad range of opinions.
- Civil Discourse. The Council encourages respectful, honest, and courageous discussion of controversial ideas in and outside of the classroom.
While these three bullet points are anything but controversial to anyone my age or older, the events beginning in October of 2023 highlighted for the general public that the lived experience of both professors and students at places like Harvard does not conform to these ideals. Again, I would refer to the cases of Carol Hooven and Tyler Vanderweele where arguing for the view that sex is binary and biological (Hooven) or that the Supreme Court should not redefine marriage (Vanderweele) resulted in their colleagues taking punitive measures them against while the administrative class of the institution stood idly by.
The CAF issued a statement last week that can be found here that reiterates these principles and concludes by asking the three main constituents of the university- the administration, the professors, and students to affirm and live up to these values. I have wondered out loud in several meetings over the past few months what percentage of the existing student body, administration, and faculty- in the privacy of a safe and off the record environment- would say no to these principles. In other words, how can it be that the vast majority of professors are not willing to attach their names to this effort?
To the best of my understanding, there are three different categories for the remaining 95%. The first group of skeptics believes that CAF is a Trojan Horse for far right extremists. This is fair and reasonable for outsiders to wonder, especially for a group that is less than 12 months old. To this subset, I would argue that one step in the direction of engagement with members of the CAF is a good place to start, and the onus is on the core of the CAF to win them over with winsomeness and humanity. The Biblical command to extend grace not 7 times but 77 times will probably be an important operating principle if CAF is going to be successful with this subset.
Another substantially smaller group believes that while the idea of free speech and inquiry centered on public/civil discourse are good ideals in practice- the issues of the day- systemic racism, wealth inequality, etc.- are far too important to leave to such a chancy and nebulous process. Frankly, this is probably the most cynical and intransigent subset of the faculty. While I have significant overlap with this subset regarding the substantive issues, the manner in which they seek to effectuate certain outcomes leaves me on the outside looking in, and they are not likely to be won over anytime soon.
The final group, and I suspect the largest group- is the one who feels caught in the middle. In this camp, there is a wide dispersion of views on the substantive issues, but there is broad agreement that the process by which we arrive at our conclusions has broken down. They support a woman’s right to choose, but also want to acknowledge that those who value life in the womb based on their religious convictions are not a priori misogynists, and they have a perspective that needs to be heard in the public square. To this group, I say, this is your “Harvey Weinstein moment”. What do I mean by this? For years, maybe even decades, it seems that tons of people knew in their own minds that he was a predator that abused his power in wicked ways. However, his authority and status made it feel like he was untouchable and so everyone kept it to themselves. It was the transition from public knowledge (not a secret, everyone knows) to common knowledge (I know, you know, and I know that you know, and you know that I know) that led to his downfall in 2017.
Similarly, everyone knows that the norms of civil discourse have broken down, and for years, the loudest minorities would shut down anyone who dared say that the emperor has no clothes. This has reached a tipping point, and over the next few years, the community of professors has the same opportunity to change course the same way Hollywood did several years ago. What seemed all but impossible a few years ago is actually very much possible if the faculty at the world’s most venerable institution look around and see that when it comes to freedom of speech and academic inquiry, the vast majority of them agree. Our hope here is that the initial group of professors is able to draw out the silent majority- in the same way that the earliest brave women who spoke out against a serial predator inspired many others to do likewise
Conclusion: Why is this so hard?
Proponents of free speech often cite the old adage that 1A is in place precisely to protect the speech and ideas that you find offensive. I come back to this notion often because it highlights how those who oppose adherence to 1A are not some wicked and nefarious cabal, but often groups with good intentions that value outcomes over a process. This is why attacks on free speech come from all different segments of the political spectrum. Much of the attention has been rightfully directed at the Left as all statistics demonstrate that progressive ideology all but dominates the faculty at the top universities.
However, recent events have shown that resistance to free speech can also come from the Right-, exemplified by politicians like Elise Stefanik or financiers like Bill Ackman. I recently learned that over 37 states (representing a far greater proportion of the US population) have passed anti-BDS laws- essentially legislation that makes objecting to the policies of the Israeli government through the use of one’s personal spending decisions illegal. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the BDS movement, using the law to discourage a needed and important debate on how the Israeli government conducts itself very much goes against the heart of free speech and open inquiry. Specifically on campuses- the phrase “From the River to the Sea” has been deemed a call for genocide of Jews by the Stefaniks and Ackmans of the world, and the university presidents were widely condemned for not disavowing student groups who chanted this phrase. IMO- the legitimate criticism of Harvard/MIT/Penn is not in the answers given by the presidents, but in the selective manner in which free speech principles are applied.
All of this is to say, I understand the challenges in maintaining fidelity to the principle of free speech. In the small spheres where I have wielded disproportionate authority relative to those with opinions and views contrary to mine, the temptation to stifle or otherwise control narratives in a way that suits my ends is incredibly high. Speech must therefore be protected at an institutional level- particularly at places like Harvard- because without it, there is little to prevent us from succumbing to the worst version of ourselves.
