The Danger of Desensitization

Every morning when I check my phone, my family group chat is buzzing with activity. My aunt texts, “Harvard is in the news again!” accompanied by an article link. I sigh and turn my phone off, wondering to myself, when are we not?

Harvard’s near-constant national controversy — from involvement with Jeffrey E. Epstein to federal lawsuits to grade reform — has created a campus culture in which crisis feels routine. When every week brings a new headline, initial outrage dulls into fatigue. If students internalize institutional instability and administrative secrecy as normal, we risk lowering our expectations for accountability in the civic world beyond Harvard. Before we acclimate any further, we must resist the urge to let crisis fade into background noise.

Lately, Harvard can’t avoid headlines. Since November, the University has been scrutinized for ties to Epstein, particularly those involving faculty like Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers and mathematics professor Martin Nowak. In February, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Harvard, asking the University to provide individualized admissions records to conduct a federal civil rights review. Moreover, renewed battles about Harvard’s grade inflation and proposed grade cap have reopened questions regarding academic standards and student wellbeing.

Did reading all of this information feel draining for anyone else? Each headline is distinct, with its own facts and consequences. But taken together, they create something more powerful than any single controversy: a sense of exhaustion. When breaking news stories accumulate at such a mind-numbing pace, they begin to blur.

For a few days, stories like these provoke outrage. But over time, repetition changes how we respond, and that urgency gives way to fatigue. What once felt shocking starts to feel expected.

This pattern isn’t unique to Harvard. A 2025 report found that people increasingly avoid the news because it feels repetitive and emotionally draining. This phenomenon is known as outrage fatigue, where constant exposure to scandal and crisis dulls emotional response, thus reducing motivation to act.

On campus, outrage fatigue often manifests as complete detachment from the news. My friends and I joke about the latest headline or roll our eyes at the newest lawsuit. “It’s Harvard, what do you expect?” we say, our words laced with a mix of cynicism and resignation. What begins as coping quietly becomes complacency. The problem isn’t students getting defensive, it is when they slowly stop caring about accountability at all. Controversy is routine, so engagement feels futile — and when engagement feels futile, withdrawal becomes all too tempting.

Some might argue that Harvard is not uniquely chaotic. It is true that we live in a polarized, hypermediated era where institutions are scrutinized 24/7. Others might say that our response is simply realistic; institutions are messy, and expecting purity is naive.

However, even journalistic and public oversight can become exhausting when it feels relentless, and being realistic about institutional flaws does not mean we should excuse them. Recognizing imperfection should not imply normalizing dysfunction. While emotional regulation is good, sustained cynicism tends to lead to withdrawal rather than reform.

This disengagement carries consequences, especially at a place like Harvard. The University trains future lawmakers, journalists, executives, and leaders across fields. If we come to see instability and opacity as simply the way institutions operate, then we risk carrying those lowered expectations into the institutions we will one day shape. Culture is formed not only by what shocks us, but also by what stops shocking us.

For students, resisting desensitization means refusing to let constant controversy harden into habit. It means reading beyond the headlines, holding our University accountable, and asking uncomfortable questions even when the story feels out of our control. Engagement does not necessarily require outrage, but it does require attention.

For administrators, the responsibility is different but equally urgent. We need to move beyond reactive crisis management and actively commit to transparent communication. While controversy cannot always be prevented, greater clarity and consistency in communication can stop fatigue from turning into distrust. Sustained instability does not just affect your reputation, but it also reshapes campus culture. If we treat crises as ordinary, we risk deeming accountability optional.

Another morning will bring the next news notification. The question is whether we will sigh and keep scrolling, or choose to actually look up.

Tara G. Malhotra ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Wigglesworth Hall.