News

Cyanobacteria Risk Expected To Clear Up Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard On Track To Reach Net-Zero Emissions by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

News

Harvard Investigating Security Breach After Cybercrime Group Threatens To Release Stolen Data

News

Harvard College Will Ignore Student Magazine Article Echoing Hitler Unless It Faces Complaints, Deming Says

Columns

Harvard Cannot Be Neutral On Hate

By Mae T. Weir
By Adam N. Chiocco, Crimson Opinion Writer
Adam N. Chiocco ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Pforzheimer House.

Dean Deming’s non-statement on the Harvard Salient may seem like a commitment to open dialogue, but it undermines that very ideal.

In its September issue, the Harvard Salient, a conservative student magazine, published an anti-immigration piece that directly echoed rhetoric used by Hitler and embraced the principles of “blood, soil, language, and love of one’s own” — a phrase with a shocking resemblance to the Nazi slogan, “blood and soil.” The publication maintains the parallels were unintentional.

When asked for comment on the matter in an interview with The Crimson, Harvard College Dean J. Deming declined to make a statement because the College had not received complaints about the article.

Some have lauded Deming’s response as correct insofar as the response to such hateful speech should be driven by students, not administrators. I share concerns about the University getting into the business of censorship. However, Harvard’s leaders still have a significant role to play in setting expectations for behavior in discourse — Deming’s evasion of the Salient question fails to do so at a crucial juncture.

In his interview, Deming should have emphasized that basic respect and good faith are non-negotiable in political engagement. Administrators must make this notion clear moving forward.

On a human level, Deming’s public apathy comes across as unempathetic. It also allows for the degradation of campus speech culture. In order for healthy dialogue to flourish, there are certain norms of respect that students must adhere to. The use of Nazi rhetoric is an extreme, flagrant violation of those norms.

To be clear: Harvard should not censor the Salient. If the University started halting the publication of campus outlets, I worry where they would stop. But it is also obvious that any use of Nazi rhetoric is absolutely reprehensible. The slogan “blood and soil” was used as a rallying cry to expel populations the Nazis viewed as inferior from their homes for the sake of “racial purity.”

When someone invokes that legacy, they extinguish the possibility for civil discussion by tossing away basic humanity. There are ways of arguing for conservative positions on immigration in good faith — but this Salient article’s hateful language is a far cry from that. While Harvard shouldn’t reject political positions, administrators must make expectations about student conduct clear.

The University’s institutional voice policy — which I support — recommends that Harvard leaders refrain from officially commenting on matters that do not concern the “core functions” of the University. To me, it seems likely that Deming declined to comment to avoid running afoul of this policy.

If respect for institutional neutrality truly was Deming’s motivation, his public-facing trepidation is understandable. However, Harvard has made clear the central role open dialogue holds in its mission. By sitting for an interview with The Crimson, Deming made himself responsible for articulating the specifics of this mission at the College.

Instead of implicitly treating such vile speech as harmful only insofar as it breaks College rules, Deming should have proactively made clear that Hitler has no place at Harvard. He need not take a position on the Salient’s intentions — but this uncontroversial statement would have avoided the risks of legitimizing such rhetoric on campus.

Though the impact of one article may seem insignificant, it weighs heavily on political engagement at Harvard through what it represents. This case is a paradigmatic example of how students ought not behave in the public square — Deming should have communicated that. Using Nazi language is not harmful because it may or may not break Harvard’s rules — respect matters in and of itself, and ought to be a guiding ideal for Harvard.

Of course, Harvard should not respond to every ridiculous and offensive article the Salient puts out — there are plenty — nor to those from any other student organization. There is a very legitimate worry about setting a precedent of responding to every instance of poor speech conduct on campus, which is partially why Harvard adopted its institutional voice policy to begin with.

However, this instance comes at a time when Harvard leadership seems to be making an active effort to connect with campus conservatives. If Harvard is going to continue to pursue that aim in earnest, it must also make clear that conservatives at Harvard need to play by the same rules of respect as everyone else.

Affiliates are right to fear University censorship of student publications, and to instead encourage students to respond to the hate peddled by the Salient as they see fit. But University administrators have a role to play in shepherding dialogue in a positive direction.

Respectful discourse comes from all of us, but it must be emphasized from the top down.

Adam N. Chiocco ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Pforzheimer House.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags
Columns