The role of universities in shaping public discourse has been widely contested, especially in recent months. In the wake of rampant debate on issues such as the Israel–Hamas war and President Claudine Gay’s resignation from her post, universities have been criticized for both partisan and neutral responses. Some institutions have released formal statements on these issues, while others have stayed silent.
The question of the proper course of action for universities—to stay neutral or take a stance—begins with their role. Many students see college as a means to an end, a stepping stone to a lucrative career. However, at its core, higher education is intended to teach students to think both critically and for themselves. Indeed, universities serve as a crucial bridge between adolescence and adulthood, providing students with a unique opportunity to explore diverse perspectives away from the influence of their parents. They meet peers from a variety of backgrounds, take classes in a wide range of disciplines, and are exposed to new viewpoints of the world around them. Universities have a responsibility to foster free and open dialogue between students—by imposing their views on their students, they stifle this discourse before it can even begin. Therefore, institutions must practice institutional neutrality and refrain from taking stances on political issues.
In Harvard’s Quest for Fulfillment, Independent Sports Editor Luke Wagner ’26 described how Harvard students lose sight of the purpose of college—to learn—as they seek prestigious internships and high-paying jobs immediately after college. He warned that “Harvard University and its students need to shift from a myopic emphasis on career-centric goals to a more holistic and growth-oriented approach, reclaiming the true essence of education.” This true essence is only possible when students can think for themselves. During the first 18 years of their lives, students’ parents exert a major influence on their personal beliefs. When students leave home to go to college, many face an opportunity to reason independently of their parents and other hometown influences for the first time.
When institutions set University-wide precedents on political issues, they deprive their students of this opportunity. They assert their stance as the correct one and delegitimize all others. Education should foster critical thinking skills, encourage students to question prevailing beliefs, and empower them to form informed opinions based on evidence and analysis. If institutions genuinely believe in the validity of their own opinions, students’ own analysis would lead them to the same conclusion. But, they disrupt this process by imposing their own views on students.
To make matters worse, these issues are not as clear-cut as universities make them out to be. Their populations undoubtedly include students who disagree with their statements; in issuing statements, universities ostracize these students and disincentivize them from participating in free discourse on campus. Students still have access to protests and public dialogue, but universities enact additional barriers to freely exchanging ideas by setting school-wide precedents through formal statements. Disagreeing with peers on controversial issues can be difficult enough, and by failing to maintain institutional neutrality, universities further hinder the open discussion of controversial issues.
Universities’ polarizing statements divide student bodies into two groups: conformers and dissenters. Conformers often find community and validation in their agreement with the university’s position, while dissenters may retreat into smaller, like-minded groups where their differing views are accepted, resulting in echo chambers that amplify the division. This can lead to a campus where challenging discussions are avoided and ideological diversity is diminished, as students may refrain from voicing dissenting opinions that clash with the university-endorsed narrative. In these polarized environments, meaningful dialogue and exchange of ideas become increasingly rare.
According to the Pew Research Center, the divide between Republicans and Democrats in the United States is the deepest it has been in the last two decades. About two-thirds of conservatives and half of liberals say most of their friends share their political views, and approximately 30 percent of both parties’ members believe their rivals threaten the nation’s well-being. Cross-aisle compromise is growing increasingly difficult, with 78 percent of voters saying that the parties cannot agree on basic facts. By failing to uphold institutional neutrality and contributing to a larger trend of political polarization in the United States, universities risk making open debate between their students impossible.
Instead of issuing partisan statements, universities should focus on creating an environment where open discussion occurs organically and students are encouraged to form their own opinions on major political issues. By refraining from imposing their own views, universities will allow their students to engage in the critical thinking process that is at the heart of higher education. This approach not only fosters the development of well-rounded individuals capable of navigating complex issues with nuance and understanding, but it also upholds the core values of academic excellence, intellectual freedom, and the pursuit of truth.
Jonah Karafiol ’26 (jonahkarafiol@college.harvard.edu) is the News Editor of the Independent.