We Led the JFK Jr. Forum. Now More Than Ever, the IOP Must Remain Nonpartisan.

In an op-ed published on Thursday, Institute of Politics student president Pratyush Mallick argued that the organization must abandon its practice of nonpartisanship.

We disagree. Adopting a partisan stance would jeopardize the fundamental mission of the IOP, inhibit necessary conversations, and further isolate students from perspectives held by a majority of Americans.

We joined the IOP’s John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, its flagship speaker program, as freshmen, seeking a space where ideas could be discussed, debated, and challenged respectfully. The conversations with which we engaged provided a means of combating mounting polarization.

Three years later, our country — and our campus — face the same challenge. And the Forum’s goal of promoting dialogue offers the same solution. Unfortunately, Mallick’s statement puts this mission in jeopardy.

Under our leadership, the Forum has hosted guests across the political spectrum. At no other Harvard venue will you find former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaking mere days apart. We are proud of this political diversity, especially because it was no small feat.

Even before Mallick’s statement, it was difficult to convince conservatives to speak at Harvard. Institutional partisanship would make it impossible.

The community we have built relies on the buy-in of both liberal and conservative thinkers. In our experience, the membership of the IOP has drifted to the left, as Harvard’s conservatives flock to the John Adams Society or the Harvard Republican Club. Some of these individuals have lambasted the IOP as a vehicle for advancing liberal ideology. The IOP president’s explicit endorsement of institution-wide partisanship, which has already attracted national attention, validates their allegations.

Despite these trends, the IOP is (was?) a home for many Republican students. During our three years, we have had engaging conversations with members of the IOP’s Conservative Coalition. While we have had disagreements politically, we’ve engaged respectfully. This diversity of thought lies at the IOP’s core, and without it, the organization cannot realize its goals.

These goals include an enduring commitment to nonpartisanship — a value Mallick deemed “no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment.” To the contrary, nonpartisanship remains a tenable — nay, critical — stance. Harvard exists to educate its students, not inculcate them with partisan views.

Moreover, nonpartisanship has never been more important to Harvard’s survival. Six congressional committees are currently investigating our university’s federal funding. Between 2023 and 2024, donations to the endowment fell by more than $150 million, with many notable donors withholding funds. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) even privately discussed revoking Harvard’s accreditation altogether with Donald Trump in office. Clearly, further alienating half of the country would exacerbate these crises.

Alongside his calls for a partisan IOP, Mallick cites the need to continue “fostering intellectual vitality.”

What intellectual vitality is he referring to? The kind where only one party gets to speak? Where the views of over half of Americans are ignored? One cannot claim free speech if the only speech allowed is the kind one agrees with. And one cannot prepare for a life of public service if one pretends that half the public does not exist.

The fact that Trump’s election shocks many of us here at Harvard demonstrates that we have lost touch with the rest of the country — and underscores the need to host speakers of all parties. Trumpism is no longer a fringe movement nor an aberration but the face of the Republican establishment.

We attend a university where only 5.5 percent of last year’s incoming class identified as Republicans, according to The Crimson’s freshman survey. It has become a place where professors cancel class after an upsetting election result. If we do not push ourselves beyond the ideological conformity of Harvard Square, we risk descending from the institution of veritas we claim to be, to the ivory tower many believe we are.

The IOP was founded on the principle that students across ideological lines could learn from each other and appreciate the virtue of public service. Abandoning this principle would be disastrous.

We applaud IOP Director Setti Warren’s commitment to ideological diversity. Let us hope the next IOP student president agrees.

Robert H. Fogel ’25 is an Economics concentrator in Mather House and was co-chair of the JFK Jr. Forum Committee for the 2023 calendar year. Peter N. Jones ’25 is a Government concentrator in Mather House and the JFK Jr. Forum Committee’s current director of membership.