Harvard Chooses Academic Integrity

After months of turmoil surrounding many elite academic institutions, Harvard University has recently made the decision that it will no longer make university-wide proclamations on topics that are not central to the mission of the university. This is undoubtedly the correct decision that allows Harvard to remain a legitimate academic institution that is devoted to the scholarly pursuit of truth, as opposed to being an ideological outfit that capitulates to whatever opinion seems most popular among the most vociferous students and faculty.

In an excellent report on institutional voice, Harvard professors drew a wise distinction between matters related to the institution’s core functioning, such as curriculum and admission decisions, and those that are unrelated to the university’s core functioning, such as geopolitical disputes happening thousands of miles away. They decided that the latter would be inappropriate to comment on going forward, whereas it would be necessary to comment on the former.

One critical point that was made in the report is the recognition of institutional expertise. While it is true that faculty members have diverse areas of expertise, they can only speak in their own capacity as scholars, but not for an entire institution. Additionally, the professors who produced the report pointed out that an academic institution is different from a political administration that needs to have policy positions about a whole host of issues. Expecting academic institutions to have official positions on every hot-button policy topic is to fundamentally misunderstand the mission of truth-seeking and scientific inquiry. Truth and scientific insights are arrived at via debate among scholars, as opposed to institutional pontifications about what the “right” positions are.

With this move of only commenting on educational matters, Harvard avoids having to truckle to melodramatic activists who think it is smart to use their college years protesting and demanding that their university administrators “do something” about intractable geopolitical issues that even the finest political minds have been unable to make significant progress on for decades. An academic institution that is not explicitly designed around a particular worldview or ideology simply cannot issue official  statements on highly charged political issues that have nothing to do with the mission of running a stellar and inclusive institution. Any attempt to do so will, as the report aptly highlighted, diminish the academic integrity of the institution and signal to faculty who hold opinions that are different to the publicized institutional edicts that they are unwelcome.

The fact that Harvard University needs to put out a statement explaining why it is inappropriate for an institution of higher learning to have official statements on politically charged issues demonstrates that so many people do not have an understanding of the fact that the fundamental role of academic institutions is to foster free inquiry, of which debate is a critical part. The kind of person who expects a statement from Harvard making black-and-white statements about subjects where there are immense amounts of gray are the kind of people who think exclaiming, “There is no other side!” is an effective counterargument to their ideological opponents.

In essence, far too many people at universities today simply have little to no appreciation for the role of argumentation and engaging in genuine persuasion. They attend these prestigious schools for the credentials and to hint to the world that they are clever; however, they often leave these institutions with expertise in theatrical protesting, but no understanding of Aristotelian logic or the importance of being able to write coherently argued points that demonstrate the logical and moral superiority of their positions. Protesting in a way that causes a disturbance may cause people to capitulate to one’s demands, but it does not actually do much to change people’s minds.

While Harvard is in absolutely no danger of losing its place as the most well-funded academic institution in the world, it cannot afford to informally be known as a place where making official ideological statements to appease activists is more important than standing up for academic inquiry. This is how grand institutions lose their luster. With some of the scandals and issues that have been plaguing Harvard in recent months, this decision to stand up for institutional neutrality on matters that are unrelated to the functioning of the university is an easy win that helps the institution to signal to potential buyers into their brand that they are not a complete joke with no punchline.