The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) assessed the free-speech climate at 254 colleges and universities, and 253 of those managed to avoid an “Abysmal” rating. The lone exception: Harvard University.
FIRE’s scale ranged from zero to 100 and, theoretically, made it nearly impossible for a school to fall below zero. Yet Harvard — renowned for defying academic expectations — accomplished just that, scoring a startling -10.69. In what FIRE characterized as a “generous” gesture, and perhaps driven by sheer astonishment that a school could fall below zero, FIRE officially recorded Harvard’s score as 0.00.
How did Harvard manage to score below what was supposedly the lowest attainable rating on FIRE’s scale? The New York Post‘s Rikki Schlott provides an explanation:
Harvard’s score was dragged down by the fact that nine professors and researchers there faced calls to be punished or fired based on what they had said or written — and seven of the nine were actually professionally disciplined.
“I thought it would be pretty much impossible for a school to fall below zero, but they’ve had so many scholar sanctions,” [director of polling and analytics at FIRE Sean] Stevens said.
The score is calculated based on factors including how strong the school’s policies in favor of free speech are and how many professors, students and campus speakers have been targeted by authorities for their speech.
Bonuses are applied if the school’s administrators stand up for the rights of those whose free speech was threatened.
The upward boost to the ostensibly poorest attainable score hardly makes Harvard’s speech climate any more favorable, especially compared with its Ivy League counterparts. For instance, the University of Pennsylvania, which ranked second-to-last in FIRE’s rankings with a score of 11.13, stands over two standard deviations above Harvard’s calculated negative score.
FIRE’s report becomes even more concerning when we delve into the survey results. 29 percent of Harvard students expressed that using violence to curtail campus speech was, at least, rarely acceptable. That one of the most prestigious and academically esteemed universities in the country has more than one in four students who believe speech can be silenced through violence should warrant grave concern. Even though violence obviously isn’t widespread on Harvard’s campus, as the belief that violence can be acceptable becomes more prevalent on campus, it inevitably results in self-censorship.
Indeed, one Harvard student surveyed said that when discussing summer plans with peers, he avoided telling peers about his trip to Israel and instead told classmates he was simply traveling abroad. Ironically, another student said he was “Pro-Palestine,” but refrained from openly expressing these beliefs due to fear of being labeled as antisemitic. What could have been an intellectually riveting discussion is instead stifled, on both sides, by self-censorship.
The “Welcome to Harvard” website page proudly proclaims the university as a place “where world-class professors, innovative research, and a dynamic student community come together to advance education and foster change in the world.” However, what purpose does coming together serve when those students feel compelled to conceal their genuine beliefs? How can students effectively advance education or bring about change when they are boxed out of the ever-narrowing window of acceptable speech?
Considering that Harvard has nearly one administrator for every student, the oldest academic institution in the country should have no problem finding problem-solvers to help remedy the campus-speech climate. Unless, of course, it opts to overlook this issue as unworthy of remediation or, even worse, dismiss it as a credible concern entirely.