Harvard Takes a Stand by Not Taking One: Is True Neutrality Possible in the Face of Hamas?

Harvard University has announced a significant policy shift, it will no longer issue public statements on matters unrelated to its core academic mission. This decision, driven by recommendations from a faculty committee, marks a departure from the institution’s previous practices of commenting on global and domestic events.

The policy change follows intense criticism of Harvard’s handling of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and aims to preserve the university’s integrity and focus on its primary educational objectives.

The Institutional Voice Working Group, an eight-member faculty committee, released a report emphasizing the risks associated with making official statements on non-academic issues. The report highlighted that such statements could compromise the university’s credibility and integrity by appearing to favor certain events or groups over others.

Noah Feldman, co-chair of the committee, stated, “Harvard isn’t a government. It shouldn’t have a foreign policy or a domestic policy.”

This perspective underscores the belief that the university’s primary role is to foster an environment of free inquiry, teaching, and research without engaging in political or social advocacy.

Some people think the new policy is good. They believe it helps keep academic freedom by staying neutral. They say this neutrality encourages open discussions without favoring any side. But others disagree. They think being truly neutral is impossible. They say not speaking out on important issues can itself show where a university stands. Peter Wood, who leads a group of scholars, called this neutrality a “false flag.” He thinks universities will still take sides on political issues even if they say they’re neutral.