Speak on Principle, Not for What It Gets You

To say that students are uncomfortable talking about controversial subjects on Harvard’s campus is almost a platitude.

Statistics on discomfort around controversial speech and self-censorship are frequently brandished as evidence of a lackluster speech culture at Harvard. As I have argued before, while speech culture at Harvard is not nearly as lacking as some of our most vocal critics would suggest, that does not mean we ought to dismiss concerns of student discomfort outright.

These statistics exist as part of a larger speech climate; discomfort and self-censorship could be seen, to some extent, as the result of the potential consequences we have seen our peers face for controversial speech; they have had their faces plastered on the sides of trucks parading around Harvard Square, dealt with online doxxing, and faced similar threats.

When it comes to the practical consequences of controversial speech, there is little we can do as individual students. We cannot safeguard our campus against doxxing trucks, we cannot inaugurate University initiatives, and we cannot control portrayal of Harvard by the media. Moreover, the problem of discomfort around discussing controversial issues is a perennial problem in its own right; discussing controversial topics is hard, and there will always be some level of trepidation associated with engaging in challenging dialogue.

Ultimately, unless students feel ready to speak and are able to work through their discomfort, any attempt at encouraging constructive dialogue around controversial issues will fall flat. There is no venue for speech nor any set of policies that can make words come out of our mouths.

What can we, as individual students do? First and foremost, we need to reframe how we see our role as participants in campus discourse; a better speech culture only comes when we value speech for its own sake.

Harvard has a culture that celebrates those who are goal-oriented. To understand how this is the case, one need only look at the prominence of pre-professional activities on campus in relation to the careers we pursue — perhaps at the expense of the dreams of our idealistic highschool selves. Or, on a more personal level, I doubt there is a single Harvard student who has not noticed how many student organizations seem to have more “leaders” than members, reflecting an ethos that sees our engagement in campus culture primarily as a means to getting a line on a résumé.

This goal-oriented mindset is not entirely a bad thing; it is, in part, the reason Harvard produces world-renowned leaders of all kinds and in all sectors of public life. Yet, behind a culture that prioritizes the achievement of goals over the time we spend here lies a way of thinking about the world: we use the means we require to achieve our ends.

When applied to the realm of speech, this way of thinking can explain why external factors — such as doxxing, social ramifications, and media coverage — are able to foment an air of discomfort around controversial speech.

In this culture of means-ends reasoning, if speech is disadvantageous to one’s career goals, etc., then we will not feel comfortable engaging in it. If, however, we shift our mindsets to see speaking our genuine beliefs as a matter of principle divorced — at least to some extent — from the admittedly displeasurable consequences that will follow, we can fight discomfort and self-censorship on the ground. I do not think that Harvard students do not believe that speech is valuable; rather, I think our culture of prioritizing goals above all else leads us to neglect the virtue of open dialogue in favor of other attractive (and maybe even worthy) ends.

How can we shift our mindset? We can begin by looking back at our idealistic, high school selves. Not many of us, I would imagine, came here seeking an education that would simply be a means to an end. While I imagine that the allure of a university well-suited to provide a stable career and a good income was not absent from many of our high school minds, we were selected for far more than our earning potential.

I have met classmates who have published books, led large-scale organizing movements, and used what little political power is available to young people to transform their communities. I refuse to be a cynic and think that all these accomplishments were merely a means to gain admission to selective universities. The point being: in most Harvard students, there is a younger version of ourselves willing to see pursuing what we genuinely value as worthwhile, even when the consequences may not pan out in our favor. We can take a step back and reject this form of reasoning that causes us to be overly cautious about speech.

We cannot change speech culture overnight, even if we change our mindsets. But it is certainly a good place to start.

Allison P. Farrell ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Leverett House.