HMS Students and Faculty Self-Censor on Controversial Issues, Working Group Finds

A Harvard Medical School working group on open inquiry found that students and faculty frequently self-censor on controversial topics and recommended a series of changes to strengthen classroom and laboratory discourse, according to a report released Tuesday.

The 16-member group, chaired by former HMS Dean Jeffrey S. Flier, called on the school to host regular public forums modeling debate on controversial issues, expand a recently adopted non-attribution rule for classroom discussions, and develop explicit guidelines on the boundaries of student and faculty activism in clinical settings.

HMS Dean George Q. Daley ’82 announced the working group in April 2025, charging it with recommending steps to promote “respectful dialogue, scholarly debate, and engagement across differences.” Its formation followed the October 2024 release of a University-wide open inquiry report commissioned by Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76.

The institution’s push to examine open inquiry followed sustained pressure from the White House last spring to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion programming and what the administration called left-leaning political bias in higher education.

But Flier said in an interview before the report’s release that the effort was driven by concerns internal to HMS, not federal pressure.

“There was an obvious need for internal reform, unrelated to the Trump administration,” Flier said. “Some people will look at some of the things that are recommended and say, isn’t that something similar to what is being demanded? Maybe that’s true in a few instances, but that just is not a reason to deny the issues that we take up.”

The report draws on 17 committee meetings and listening sessions from the HMS’s Program in Medical Education executive committee, department chairs, medical student representatives, and the HMS Faculty Council.

Anonymous feedback indicated that students struggled to “disagree respectfully and understand other perspectives” and often hesitated to share views on controversial topics. Faculty reported similar reluctance, citing fear of offending colleagues or facing backlash.

Flier described the findings as “major issues” for the school.

Self-censorship was especially pronounced in required courses on medical ethics, health care policy, and social medicine — topics the report described as “politically and socially charged.” Some students felt those courses presented contested topics without sufficient viewpoint diversity, while others felt there was too much.

The report also described issues related to laboratory dynamics, where “multi-tiered mentorship and power relationships” among faculty, postdocs, students, and staff can shape norms around dialogue in ways that differ from classroom settings. It recommended integrating open inquiry case studies into existing mentorship training for principal investigators.

The report argued that HMS must also address challenges specific to biomedicine, particularly the role of activism in clinical settings. It noted that the school has not formally outlined what forms of activism are permitted, and called for explicit guidance — while acknowledging that activism “may certainly be an appropriate and meaningful path” for students and physicians.

Other recommendations include articulating informal “social compacts” to guide classroom and laboratory interactions and establishing awards recognizing affiliates who advance open inquiry.

Some of the working group’s recommendations are already underway at HMS. The school updated application essay prompts for its M.D. and master’s programs in late 2025 to place greater emphasis on applicants’ ability to engage across difference, and it has partnered with the outside organizations to train faculty, staff, and student leaders.

In a Tuesday message to HMS affiliates, Daley wrote that he looked forward to “coordinating with standing groups” to implement the recommendations. He announced that Harvard Kennedy School professor Julia A. Minson ’99 will deliver a May 8 presentation on engaging with conflicting viewpoints.

“Physicians, scientists, and health care scholars have the potential to be among the most powerful modelers of civil discourse,” Daley wrote.

Flier said the working group’s role would likely conclude with the report, leaving implementation to the rest of the school. The report ultimately framed open inquiry as inseparable from HMS’s scientific mission.

“Biomedicine relies on rigorous research and evidence-based decision-making — both of which demand suspension of preconceived notions about the world and how it operates,” it stated. “HMS is committed to veritas and its pursuit, as well the virtues of dialogue, debate, and critical reasoning.”

—Staff writer Riya S. Shah can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at riyas.23. Follow her on X @RiyaShah233.

—Staff writer Juliana L. Yao can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at jly.87. Follow her on X @JulianaYao298.