Without Ideological Diversity, Harvard Creates Leaders That Don’t Get America

As the leading academic powerhouse of the Western world and an institution known for producing global leaders, Harvard cannot separate itself from the crisis of liberalism in the United States.

There is a steep decline in institutional faith in the U.S. Mistrust is mounting in everything from Congress to higher education and even organized religion.

Amid shifting public opinion, it is crucial that Harvard recognize the ways in which the ivory tower ethos still prevalent at elite universities fails to produce capable leaders. Specifically, these universities’ homogeneously liberal environments cause them to overrepresent orthodox liberal viewpoints and normalize ideological stances seen by much of the nation as extreme, leaving the middle ground undervalued.

Just last week, a panel on Islamophobia and antisemitism scheduled to take place in Lowell House was canceled after students expressed discontent in large part owing to the panel’s ideological composition. Though the panelists — two scholars who study Judaism and one who studies Islam — were experts on the issues at hand, they were shouted down.

This isn’t a simple case of left versus right. But it speaks to a broader culture that Harvard’s political homogeneity seems to feed: When we rarely encounter views different from ours, our ability to disagree atrophies. That’s why, for the opponents of the Lowell House panel, personal politics outweighed an opportunity for real discourse.

This is just the most recent instance of opportunities for fruitful discussion being squashed on campus. These tendencies implicate serious problems for discourse and ideological diversity at the university, but the stakes are far greater than just academic freedom.

A lack of receptivity to a broad range of beliefs both results from and worsens the modern liberal’s detachment from public sentiment. In both their language and the policies they espouse, Democrats have alienated great sects of the American public.

In 2008, Obama made the mistake of arguing that white, working-class Pennysylvanians “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” This only inflamed the hatred toward liberal elites that paved the way for flattering demagogues to seize a sizable portion of the electorate.

Officials in the Biden administration have made similarly tone-deaf statements. Then-White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain retweeted a post arguing that inflation and supply chain issues were “high class problems.” This attitude toward pernicious economic conditions that really do affect low-income people has surely contributed to Democrats bleeding support in the last several years, with voters of color especially.

Rather than entrenching moralistic views, one chief aim of a political education should be to acquire the ability to grasp shifts in public opinion and craft policy accordingly. Future leaders must have the capacity to sympathize with the struggles and beliefs of Americans across all walks of life.

This idea is not new. Abraham Lincoln, for one, understood that “public sentiment is everything. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”

Lincoln is right: Beyond understanding public opinion, successful leaders must garner popular support. This feat rests on crafting policy which centers a collective “we.” The New Left of the 1960s transformed political activity, inspiring modern identity politics. One scholar, Mark Lilla, has critiqued these identity politics for blinding people to struggles and perspectives outside of their own self-defined group.

It is now more vital than ever to combat the consequences of identity politics. Narrow self-identification fosters a culture of cancellation, limits the possibility of meaningful discourse, and obscures the numerous spheres of mutual interest that can unite Americans.

An elite education — indeed, any education — must instead steer us toward productively engaging with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. If Harvard’s academic environment continues to stifle debate and sow ideological extremism, how will its graduates engage effectively in politics?

In its continuing effort to create the next generation of American leaders, Harvard must reaffirm its commitment to free speech. This is the guiding light of our University in its pursuit of truth and in its students’ pursuit of knowledge. Harvard should readily solicit speakers, professors, and students whose beliefs fall on both sides of the aisle — hearing even the most deplorable viewpoints is key to understanding public opinion in its entirety.

Stifling heterodox opinions isn’t just bad for discourse — it’s bad for creating effective leaders.

Katia M. Anastas ’27 is a Crimson Editorial editor.