What International Commitment?

Due to more restrictive policies toward travel abroad adopted this semester by the College, students are now barred from visiting countries including Lebanon, Nigeria and Yemen as well as 23 others on Harvard’s buck. Moreover, the policies prohibit the College from granting any academic credit for study abroad experiences there? While there are valid concerns about the risks inherent in traveling to some of these locations, we regret that at a time when the College is trying to encourage international experiences, it has put insurance considerations ahead of pedagogy.

What do these countries have in common? The State Department has issued even the slightest of warnings about them. While the College has always maintained a policy deterring travel to any countries with a particular type of State Department travel notice—one that “warns U.S. citizens against travel”—the new policy includes any and all warnings like those to “consider carefully the risks of travel” or “defer travel.” On its face, this policy may seem outwardly reasonable, but it is arbitrary and unfortunate. With this decision, Harvard has supremely oversimplified the dangers of traveling abroad, inhibiting Harvard students from experiencing the widest range of different cultures and traditions.

These short-sighted, stricter travel limits will inevitably hinder Harvard’s newfound—and critically important—goal of providing students with a broader, international perspective. To cite one regional example: now that Lebanon and Yemen are off-limits, students wishing to travel to the Middle East are left to choose between the Gulf, Jordan and Egypt. Cynics may contend that these countries can bestow enough perspective on the Middle East to suffice, but we suggest that these cynics try convincing a Lebanese national that his culture is exactly the same as Jordan’s.

What Harvard must do is better balance the risks involved in traveling to international destinations with the benefits that travel to these locations will bring. For many of these countries, a blanket restriction simply ignores the nuances of regional realities—deterring travel to many safe locations while sanctioning travel to plenty of more dangerous places. Regions of India, for example, can be far riskier for students than neighborhoods in Beirut or Sanaa. The border of Lebanon and Israel is not a safe place for Harvard students to travel to, but neither is the border of India and Pakistan. Yet students can still receive credit and/or funding for travel to India; while those seeking the College’s support for experiences in Lebanon are completely out of luck. State Department travel warnings are notorious for overstating danger and eschewing intra-country regional distinctions in favor of painting the bleakest picture possible. Harvard College’s travel policy should seek to do the opposite.

By deferring any determination about the risks involved in travel to the State Department’s vague statements, the College is doing a tremendous disservice to its students. Rather than defaulting on its own responsibility to determine what is and is not a safe study abroad plan, Harvard should take a cue from Yale. While Yale completely bars travel to some countries, such as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Indonesia, it also specifies off-limit areas in others. If a Yalie wished to travel to Lebanon, for instance, he could still receive money from the school unless his travel plans included “border areas.” Likewise, regions of India are also prohibited.

This more nuanced and sensible travel policy is one that should adopted in Cambridge as well. While it may be tempting for the College to limit its liability by imposing overly broad restrictions, it is crucial not to send mixed messages about Harvard’s commitment to international experience. As the University strives to establish a presence in as many corners of the world as possible, it should not shut itself off to foreign locales unnecessarily.