Harvard Must Buck Ideological Conformity

On campus and off, everyone seems to be concerned about discourse at Harvard.

The Trump administration froze billions in funding, accusing the University of promoting “divisive ideologies over free inquiry” among other charges. Our campus speech climate was ranked 245 out of 257 in the country in 2025, and dead last in 2023 and 2024. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences convened a committee to investigate classroom culture and found that students regularly self-censor when discussing controversial topics in the classroom.

Yet the problem isn’t simply a lack of ideological diversity. While over half of the graduating class of 2024 leaned liberal, 25 percent identified as moderate, 8 percent as conservative, and another 8 percent as apolitical entirely.

The problem is a culture that pushes students to pick a side without critical thought or room for dissent. Our incredible student body consists of passionate young people eager to advocate for the issues they care about. But our campus culture should make space for those who are still formulating their views on these important topics.

In order to allow for genuine growth amongst the student body, we must all give ourselves and others the chance to think critically, change our views, and deviate from popular campus sentiment.

On campus, immense social stigma surrounds discussion of controversial issues. According to the University’s 2024 senior survey, only 17 percent of conservative students, 25 percent of moderate students, and 41 percent of liberal students felt comfortable discussing controversial topics. It is telling that even those politically aligned with the campus majority are hesitant to express their views.

Of course, many students hold strong convictions. Indeed, our campus abounds with a powerful combination of student activism, advocacy, and expertise. Students are involved with everything from mobilizing against the Trump administration’s attacks on Harvard to advocating for Palestine. The significant effort that goes into these clubs — an average of 14.3 hours per week by one estimate — demonstrates deep student engagement.

An involved student body is only natural, given an admissions process that rewards students who have invested significant time and effort into extracurricular activities. Importantly, this work is a crucial contribution to the meaningful discourse taking place on campus. Yet, living on such a campus surrounded by passionate advocates, students may feel pressure to engage in issues with which they are largely unfamiliar.

I’ve experienced this effect firsthand. When I first came to college, I held no strong views on a variety of global conflicts and domestic issues. Upon arriving on campus, I felt immense pressure to label myself with a cause. It felt impossible to view issues through an unbiased lens, much less meaningfully get involved after developing my own perspective. And although I generally align myself with liberal views, I felt inundated with the pressure to prove that I was both progressive enough and active enough on every issue area.

There is a strong expectation to have the “correct” views on topics we may have never had the opportunity to think deeply about. Instead, we must all become comfortable with the truth that we don’t always need to have an answer and we can’t always be “right.”

We all do each other a disservice by creating a campus culture that doesn’t allow us to try different ideologies and worldviews. In doing so, we alienate our peers who find themselves not yet sure about an issue or straying from the most popular view.

College is a time to think deeply and have your mind changed rather than conform to the ideas of those around you.

Although many have strong views and come to Harvard with advocacy in mind, we cannot stop ourselves from growing further intellectually and ideologically once we’re here.

I’m not suggesting that students shouldn’t be deeply involved in the causes and communities they care about politically. If anything, I suggest the opposite. We all ought to spend much of our time in college considering the morals that we value most and developing our politics. We should all make an effort to better understand the systems, events, and people that shape our society.

Human beings are perpetually learning and changing, and can’t be easily defined as good or bad based on what they feel at any given moment. Resist the pressure to quickly categorize yourself and others, and take a moment when you can to question why you feel a certain way. Slow down when considering difficult issues and viewpoints, and don’t hesitate to take a step back to think things through.

The next time you find yourself questioning a view or needing more time to think, I challenge you to be okay with not yet knowing. Intellectual homogeneity — and stagnation — certainly doesn’t have to be our reality.

Ira Sharma ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is an Economics concentrator in Mather House.