Opinion: A test for freedom at Harvard

Which is the true face of Harvard University? Is it a school that withstands censorial pressures by standing firm against students who want a vitriolic anti-Israeli poet barred from speaking on campus? Or is it a place where free-speech principles can be sacrificed for political correctness? The school's continued reputation as a place of intellectual rigor and academic freedom depend on the answer.

The mythology of Harvard Law School's survival-of-the-fittest learning environment was cemented in the public's mind by the performance of John Houseman as professor Kingsfield in the movie The Paper Chase. In his regal style, he challenged all manner of sloppy thinking with little concern over the bruised egos in his classroom. His message: learn or leave.

Today, at campuses across the country, students, faculty and administrators who view offensive speech or disturbing ideas as an educational felony are devaluing freedom of expression and conscience, and it appears Harvard is getting ready to surrender its free-speech principles in the name of racial sensitivity.

The law school's Committee on Healthy Diversity, made up of faculty and students, is planning to draft a speech code, dressed up as a "discrimination harassment policy," that would punish students and professors whose speech offends racial minorities.

The call for a code came from the Black Law Students Association after two incidents roiled the campus: A professor in class said that nothing had been contributed to tort law by feminism, Marxism and black studies. And in an e-mail, an anonymous student offended a black student who had objected to an earlier racial slight. A professor thought the debate this exchange sparked could be the basis for a learning experience in the form of a mock trial. The suggestion caused another uproar and led to the teacher withdrawing from the class.

These incidents, which seem rather benign in the real world, are a test of Harvard's commitment to academic freedom.

Interestingly, at the same time law school administrators seem ready to give in to political correctness, another free-speech issue has emerged. Tom Paulin, an Irish poet who has said U.S.-born settlers in Israel "should be shot dead," has been reinvited to speak at Harvard by the university's English professors. His visit had been canceled due to student complaints over his hate speech, but he was reinvited in the name of free expression.

"We are ultimately stronger as a university if we together maintain our robust commitment to free expression," said Harvard president Lawrence Summers, on why the poet should appear.

This is the same man who, regarding the racial speech incidents, said: "We need to have zero tolerance for intolerance."

Well, which is it?

Is Harvard University a campus that welcomes all ideas, no matter how disturbing, in recognition that it takes unfettered dialogue to open minds and grow intellectually? Or will it adopt punitive codes to stifle frank discussions on race, one of the most difficult and controversial subjects of our time?

If it chooses the latter, Harvard will demonstrate an academic weakness unworthy of an institution that spawned such brilliant legal minds as Supreme Court Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and William Brennan. Surely Harvard will resist these pressures and stand firm for free speech and academic freedom.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page