News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift 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 Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

Editorials

Harvard Must Choose Engagement Over Censorship

By Julian J. Giordano
By The Crimson Editorial Board, Crimson Opinion Writer
This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

An article in the September issue of The Harvard Salient, a College conservative publication, contained a line that bore a shocking resemblance to a 1939 speech delivered by Adolf Hitler. (The publication maintains the invocation was unintentional.)

In an interview with The Crimson, Harvard College Dean J. Deming declined to comment on the contents of the article unless the College received a formal complaint about the piece.

Using rhetoric that echoes Hitler is vile and unacceptable — full stop. No value for Harvard’s traditions of intellectual discourse or free inquiry is created by somehow overlooking the use of language nigh copy-pasted from a speech by history’s leading antisemite.

Still, a University move to punish the Salient would set a dangerous precedent of policing student publications. The strength of our commitment to free speech is determined not by our protection of speech with which we agree, but that which we find reprehensible. Ultimately, it is student counterspeech itself — not restrictive speech codes — that should moderate campus discourse.

This incident clearly warrants counterspeech. The exact line used in the piece reads, “Germany belongs to the Germans, France to the French, Britain to the British, America to the Americans.” Consider the corresponding (translated) quote from Hitler: “France to the French, England to the English, America to the Americans, and Germany to the Germans.” The parallel is obvious and, as such, we condemn it in the strongest terms. Invoking Hitler to justify one’s political views, intentionally or not, is beyond the pale.

Using this rhetoric does nobody any favors — certainly not for students who are deeply offended by the phrase — nor for Harvard conservatives themselves. One can advocate for immigration reform or a national identity without using language that closely mirrors Hitler, and we don’t believe our peers who find themselves right of the aisle would support employing language from 1931 Berlin.

The article is the speech of one conservative student — not many. It reflects the heinous views of an extreme outlier and little else and should be taken as one frightful formulation of language amongst more respectable peers.

In his response, Dean Deming rightfully noted the importance of students to both express themselves and criticize one another, a posture that we support. As a newspaper ourselves, we stand against any step Harvard may take to interfere in student publications. The College or University doing otherwise would encroach on students’ rights to free speech, whether at the Salient, The Crimson, or elsewhere.

To the extent that students feel certain language violates Harvard policies or national laws, they should make use of existing reporting frameworks. If those mechanisms prove completely ineffectual, some reform is likely needed. Nonetheless, a litany of opinions will spark legitimate outrage without meriting a University response. In those cases, the responsibility of counter-engagement falls on students.

To students: Write and debate ideas of all political stripes. When ideas conflict with your sense of what lies outside the pale of acceptable discourse, meet them with more speech.

In declining to comment on the article, Dean Deming staked his position on student responsibility for student discourse, a noble stand. And though we vehemently disagree with the replication of lines from Nazi speech, we support the fundamental right of freedom to speak — not freedom to avoid criticism.

The opportunity for response now lies with students. When discourse proves difficult, how should our campus respond? The answer is engagement — not censorship.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.

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

Tags
Editorials