Harvard Is Doing Discourse Wrong

Picture this: A student government president resigns after public backlash to his recently uncovered anti-immigrant views. But deep down, he’s really just a thoughtful guy with an open mind.

Liberal mob. Conservative canceled. Illiberalism prevails.

You get the idea.

That might sound like a story pulled from Fox News primetime. Unfortunately, it’s the opening anecdote of “Perspectives,” Harvard’s new orientation training on constructive dialogue, required for all first-years.

One of us was asked to record the introduction to the training, which he did because of a belief in intellectual vitality as a worthwhile, essential pursuit. And it’s because of this very belief that we’re critical of “Perspectives” and the attitude it represents.

A product of Jonathan D. Haidt’s Constructive Dialogue Institute, the new module is the most recent of Harvard’s many attempts to promote “civil discourse.”

In principle, a University-wide commitment to free speech is commendable. But in practice, Harvard has too often promoted a hollow, right-wing vision of civil discourse, all the while failing to engage in — or even allow — difficult conversations when the moment demands.

“Perspectives” epitomizes that incomplete approach. In lesson one, we get the program’s only example of organizing or activism: a criminal anti-GMO protester who learns the error of his ways after finally bothering to look into the facts.

Later, we hear about two roommates feuding over their last orange before realizing one of them just requires the zest — if only every real dispute were so simple.

We’re asked to “fully solve” an issue like healthcare or climate change in a few sentences to demonstrate that the world is more complicated than you think.

And we’re offered the Adams/Jefferson or Ginsburg/Scalia friendships as models for bridging political difference. (Perhaps you too can bond with your colleagues as you gut voting rights and enable super PACs to run wild).

Meanwhile, of course, we never see a concrete scenario in which a student or professor says something racist or transphobic, nor receive more than generalized advice about how to respond productively to hate speech.

And that’s the point. Trainings like this one reflect the narrow view that the major threat to free speech on campus is conservatives’ fear of “cancellation” — so “civil discourse” is anything that allays those concerns.

Don’t get us wrong: “Perspectives” isn’t all bad. Its discussion of cognitive biases, mindfulness techniques, and psychology research is useful. And sure, we could all do well to steer clear of unnecessary public pile-ons.

But after 11 months of doxxing, death threats, and unprecedented punishment of student protesters, this slew of simplistic scenarios and Fox News fables falls flat.

Think back to last year.

For signing a controversial letter — or merely being affiliated with organizations that did — our classmates’ faces were broadcast on flashing billboard trucks. They were labeled “Harvard’s leading antisemites.” Their full names and hometowns were circulated online. They received death threats. They were even blasted by Harvard faculty.

Months later, the trucks returned — this time targeting students at the Law School. But only last week, after nearly a year, did administrators clarify that doxxing violates University rules. (By contrast, the University took mere months to reiterate prohibitions against indoor demonstrations, the use of megaphones, and unapproved gatherings on Widener’s steps.)

In March, a panel on Islamophobia and antisemitism — part of a new “Fellowship in Values Engagement” — was canceled after a barrage of public criticism and the subsequent withdrawal of institutional support.

In other words, as soon as a civil discourse initiative generated controversy (as civil discourse often does) its University sponsors turned heel and ran, foisting the blame on the resident tutor who organized it.

Then, during the pro-Palestine encampment last spring, administrators frequently admonished student protesters for failing to raise their concerns through the “proper channels,” neglecting to mention that such channels hardly exist.

Addressing the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Provost John F. Manning ’82 insisted that dialogue is “welcome” when not the result of “disruptions, demands, and ultimatums.” When asked about students’ repeated email attempts to initiate conversations with administrators, Manning claimed President Garber was simply unaware of those requests.

In reality, the primary response to impassioned student protest was escalating waves of punishment – first through involuntary leave, then with probations and suspensions which prevented 13 seniors from graduating (a move widely condemned by the University community).

Now, it seems Harvard has learned all the wrong lessons. To kick off the year, the University made plans to streamline disciplinary procedures, ban harmless speech like chalking, and call in police to respond to “substantial disruption.”

None of this sounds to us like promoting “civil discourse” — something Harvard should be doing. Talking with people who aren’t already on the same page as you is a universal skill — whether when living with new roommates, participating productively in a seminar, or organizing people behind a common cause like a campaign or a union.

But civil discourse means more than a blank check to cancel panels, punish protests, and cry “cancel culture.”

It requires faculty to model constructive conversations, not lambast students on social media. It requires administrators to treat protest as integral to campus discourse, not anathema to it.

And it requires the University to defend forums for conversations about pressing issues, not flee at the first hint of controversy.

A few weeks ago, both of us attended a training for pre-orientation leaders and heard remarks from a University leader about moving forward this year. To the best of our recollection, the presenter could not bring himself to even use the word “encampment,” opting instead for euphemistic references to “the events of last semester.”

Real discourse requires us all to acknowledge reality. Until we do that, Harvard’s commitment to “intellectual vitality” is nothing more than an epitaph in waiting.

Saul I.M. Arnow ’26, an Associate Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Adams House. E. Matteo Diaz ‘27, a Crimson Editorial Comp Director, lives in Leverett House