Professors Debate Free Speech and Intellectual Diversity at Harvard

One year ago this month, elite universities faced a campus crisis of their own making. Places like Columbia, Harvard, and dozens more woke up to find pro-Hamas encampments on their lawns, and Jewish students woke up to a nightmare of harassment that was largely tolerated, if not actively encouraged, by some university leaders and faculty members.  

The students who harassed, threatened, and intimidated their Jewish peers tried to justify their indefensible actions under the banner of free speech. Meanwhile, actual free speech—the civil exchange of diverse viewpoints—has long been trampled on campus. Riley Gaines was trapped in a classroom and assaulted for daring to state that men should not compete in women’s sports. Economist Art Laffer was shouted down at SUNY Binghamton with assistance from university police, who shut down the event rather than protect his right to speak. 

These are not isolated incidents: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression found that most conservative students feel uncomfortable disagreeing with their peers and professors. Liberal students were more likely to feel comfortable expressing their opinions, but not by much. 

Harvard University, which FIRE ranks last for free speech, is still living with the effects of a tumultuous year. Former President Claudine Gay was ousted, not for her willingness to tolerate anti-Jewish hate, but for plagiarism revelations and backlash from donors. She is still employed as a professor at the university. 

After a year of upheaval, has Harvard learned anything about what free speech is and what it is not? The Steamboat Institute brought George Washington University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley and Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy together at Harvard to debate whether the landmark institution supports free speech and intellectual diversity, or if it is falling short. 

Kennedy addressed Gay’s controversial remarks in a Congressional hearing, in which she said that calling for the genocide of Jews may or may not violate Harvard’s bullying and harassment policies “depending on the context.” Kennedy said, “Under very difficult circumstances, she stood for freedom of expression [and] was pilloried, even though what she said was correct.” Turley argued that conduct by the pro-Hamas students, including harassment, taking over buildings, and tearing down posters of hostages can and should be punished without violating the principle of free speech. 

Turley noted the Harvard faculty’s overwhelming skew to the political left as evidence that intellectual diversity is not an institutional priority. He cited a Harvard Crimson study which found that only 2.5% of Harvard faculty are conservative. “Courts look at that and see de facto discrimination,” he said. “If you had reduced your faculty to less than 3% women or minorities, courts would say we’re not going to buy this idea that it’s purely accidental.”

Kennedy, who disputes the validity of FIRE’s free speech rankings, says that any particular department’s political leanings do not make that department any more or less effective at teaching students. Kennedy also addressed campus speakers, saying that inviting or disinviting an individual to speak is also an act of free speech. 

Decisions made by universities about who to invite (or disinvite), about who to hire (or to not hire), and about what activity gets punished (or not punished), ultimately affect the quality of education that students receive. Turley warned viewers that getting rid of diversity of thought, and dismissing concerns from those in the political minority, has serious consequences: “If you want to do that, that’s fine, that’s the echo chamber you’re going to create. But I’m telling you you won’t come out of this with the education you could have had if you had greater diversity of thought here,” he said.