Harvard, Please Comment!

Harvard makes for good headlines. That’s why the media publishes so many stories about us. Why, then, are our leaders so averse to talking about Harvard in the press?

Three recent news reports demonstrate this peculiar media shyness. In January, the Boston Globe reported on student discontent with University cuts and changes to DEI programs. In early February, Defense Secretary Pete B. Hegseth announced his department would cut academic ties with Harvard. That same month, the Trump regime’s ongoing extortion campaign against the University made the news yet again, as Trump demanded $1 billion from Harvard. Harvard substantively said the same thing each time: No comment.

This reticence serves us all poorly. With higher education under attack, Harvard’s reluctant approach to public relations allows our opponents to construct the narrative about us and reinforces our reputation as secretive and aloof. Harvard must present itself to the world with the same creativity and energy with which we teach, learn, and research.

Of course, the University doesn’t want to gossip publicly about government partnerships, internal staffing, or sensitive negotiations. But the failure to say anything — often literally nothing at all — is baffling.

Does the University have no message to convey to the public? No countervailing vision of our work and how we serve the public good? No answer to a barrage of criticism other than haughty reserve?

The University could avail itself of many responses between silence and reckless disclosure. For example, every report about the government’s extortion campaign presents an opportunity to remind the public of three essential facts: Harvard has won in court against the regime because the government’s punishments have no apparent legal or procedural basis; Harvard has taken steps internally to investigate its failures and to prevent their recurrence; and our federal contracts support essential research in disciplines ranging from human health, to arts, to education, to national defense.

Occasionally, reporters fill in some of this information, which the University may well be providing off-the-record. But officially, more often than not, Harvard stays mum. Such mute refusal is a bad strategy for an institution criticized for elitism.

When reporters — or, for that matter, faculty, students, and alumni — ask reasonable questions, and Harvard fails to provide comment, the University and its leadership lose the benefit of the doubt, particularly when adopting controversial policies. If Harvard’s leaders are making decisions thoughtfully, based on evidence, and involving input from the whole community, then what do they have to hide? Why can’t Harvard comment? And if not commenting directly, why doesn’t Harvard use every opportunity to reiterate the principles driving our actions?

Equally maddeningly, the University’s own publicity campaign to promote research and teaching is anemic at best. True, the Gazette publishes excellent profiles of faculty research (mostly in health research and the natural sciences). And many people noticed Harvard’s website redesign in spring 2025. But it takes more than the campus news service and a renovated homepage to change public perceptions of our work.

I know the University advertises itself via multiple public relations departments. But Harvard’s beautifully-crafted, carefully-curated videos, photos, and stories mistake refinement for relevance and elegance for effectiveness.

Harvard’s Facebook page posts roughly one Gazette story a day. So far in 2026, Harvard’s Instagram feed advertises only three videos of faculty talking about their work (and slightly larger number of photos with lengthy captions). Harvard shows moderately more energy on TikTok, but produces nowhere near the volume of content that’s expected in our attention economy.

More content, shared more frequently and with less fussiness would better advertise the messy, hectic, and exuberant intellectual, creative, and social life on campus.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences alone has over 1,200 faculty. Harvard could post short-form videos featuring FAS faculty teaching or explaining their research twice a week, every single week for at least a decade before they’d have to repeat a faculty member. Are “no comment” and monthly, intricately-produced videos truly the best we can manage?

What would a better public relations campaign look like? First, Harvard must take every opportunity to promote our own story about ourselves. In this media environment, silence does not engender good will. Second, Harvard must not be afraid to explain its decisions, internally and externally. To earn trust, we must demonstrate trust; controversial decisions warrant frank explanations. And third, Harvard should draw on its vast community to produce significantly more content — one never knows what will effectively attract positive attention to this remarkable campus.

Harvard must tell the world that we’re not an aspirational luxury brand but a working educational community, full of talented, dedicated people using their creativity to answer big questions and solve hard problems. Harvard can and should do more to share that story — our stories — at every opportunity.

Derek Miller is a professor of English and the chair of the Standing Committee on Theater, Dance, and Media at Harvard.