The Selective Application of Free Speech Principles at Harvard
In what world does non-conformity to neo-pronouns deserve a greater condemnation than genocidal chants?
The barbaric events of October 7th and the subsequent days that have followed, have revealed, if not already apparent, the moral bankruptcy of our elite universities. Take for example, Cornell’s Russell Rickford, describing the massacre as “exhilarating.” Or Harvey Mudd’s Ambereen Dadabhoy describing the attacks as “real heroism.” Arguably, the worst of all came on December 5th, when three top institutions broadcasted the culmination of systemic ideological indulgence for the entire world to see.
During the hearing, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn showed their true colors and indifference to evil. When asked by Rep. Elise Stefanik if “calling for the genocide of Jews” goes against their institution’s bullying and harassment code of conduct, all three presidents refused to provide an answer. President Claudine Gay of Harvard, additionally under fire for recent accusations of plagiarism, doubled down on her refusal by replying that it “depends on the context.”
As a result of their utter incompetence in answering a basic question, widespread condemnation from alumni and supporters descended upon the three elite universities, resulting in the University of Pennsylvania’s President, Liz Magill, resigning. MIT’s Sally Kornbluth and Harvard’s Claudine Gay have survived such pressure with unanimous support from their respective boards.
The Harvard Corporation released their statement providing “unanimous support” for Gay, who was inaugurated earlier this fall. Citing Gay’s ability to “address the very serious societal issues we are facing” and Harvard’s “commitment to open discourse,” they “reaffirm their support.” Harvard is doubling down on its duty to open discourse and free thought in the wake of its president’s moral blunder. The question is therefore raised: is Harvard the beacon of intellectual diversity and free speech they profess themselves to be? The short answer: no.
First, “intellectual diversity” at Harvard is laughable. In a 2022 survey conducted by the Harvard Crimson, more than 80 percent of Harvard faculty defined themselves as liberal— among them, half are “very liberal”— while a measly one percent of faculty are conservative. One singular percent. Would Harvard be authentically “diverse” if its student body was 99% white? It is hard to believe that the level of liberal purity at Harvard is a natural occurrence rather than a systemic effort. How can students benefit from the fruits of intellectual diversity if 1% of the faculty are conservative?
The invocation of the importance of free speech and discourse to shield the roars of genocidal chants against Jews is frankly insulting and reeks of hypocrisy.
Admittedly, cases of free speech can be muddy and unclear. Just look at the lengthy legal jurisprudence that has sought to define what protected speech looks like. Consider Brandenburg v. Ohio or Tinker v. Des Moines, to name a few. But, what Gay revealed in her testimony was not an affirmation of support for protected speech but another installment of Harvard’s long line of selective enforcement and ideological partiality on the basis of speech.
In September, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, gave Harvard its lowest Free Speech Ranking score ever. The group characterized the official 0.00/100 score as “generous,” as the real score was -10.69. FIRE classified the campus speech climate as “abysmal.” The study also found that “70% of students say shouting down a speaker to prevent them from speaking on campus is at least rarely acceptable.”
Just last year, Harvard advised students during mandatory Title IX that “using the wrong pronouns,” perpetuating “fatphobia” and “cisheterosexism” could constitute “abuse.” Intellectual diversity is cast aside when conflicted with gender ideology. More fundamentally, in what world does non-conformity to neo-pronouns deserve a greater condemnation than genocidal chants?
After decades of radical intellectuals subverting higher education from within, our nation’s most prestigious college presidents seemingly cannot answer basic questions without referencing their “need to place this event in context” playbook. Additionally, this calls into question all our notions of an “elite education.” What virtue does a prestigious Ivy League degree provide if it cannot identify abject evil? If moral truth is clouded by ideological grievance, how can we learn?
This recent episode of repugnant and arrogant dithering displayed by President Gay and the Harvard Corporation reveals the essence of the intellectual left: the source of truth lies within their purview, and whatever affirms their activism is wholly sacred. But whatever flies in the face of the orthodoxy is to be repressed and castigated outside of the academic arena.
Tanner Nau is an undergraduate student at Rhodes College, where he studies politics, law, economics, and religion. He has interned with the John Locke Foundation and with Congressman Patrick McHenry. He has previously published work at National Review, Carolina Journal, and Lone Conservative. @tannernau15