New rankings reveal Harvard’s disregard for free speech.

Harvard Ranked ‌as Worst College⁢ Campus for Free Speech

Earlier this month, the New⁤ York Post published a ​recent report that ranked Harvard as the ⁤very worst college ⁣campus in America for free⁢ speech. ⁢The article details the annual rankings by the Foundation‌ for Individual Rights and⁢ Expression (FIRE), a non-profit seeking ⁤to protect speech ⁢rights in America. FIRE’s annual report⁢ on freedom of speech at‍ college campuses uses ‍a variety of ⁤methods​ to rank 254​ colleges nationwide, including the school’s free speech policies, whether community members have been disciplined or targeted, if administrators ever ⁢stand up to defend ⁤free speech, and ​a student survey with over 55,000 participants. These and other factors are ​used ⁤to calculate ⁤a “score” for each school, ranking the speech climates across varying campuses.

Harvard, the⁤ world’s most renowned academic⁣ institution, scored the​ worst out ‌of⁣ every school with⁣ a zero ​out ​of a 100-point scale. The second to last?⁤ University of Pennsylvania with a score of 11.13. While Harvard is not exactly known for being the most conducive school for free speech in America, is it really the worst?

The Struggle for Freedom of Speech on ⁢College Campuses

Freedom of speech on college campuses⁣ has become such⁤ a common topic in the ⁢news that‍ it feels like a catchphrase. As‌ such, the question of what it really means ​for a campus‌ to facilitate discourse has become ⁢rather‍ lucrative. Of course, a student or faculty member⁤ at Harvard can say or ‍write anything they wish,‍ but few members of the community are quite ​so naïve. In the past year, nine professors⁤ and researchers faced demands to be fired because of something they ⁢had said or written, and seven out of those nine faced professional ⁤consequences ⁣(FIRE).

I have found infringement on my speech at Harvard ⁣to ⁢be more about what I​ am expected to say ​than what I cannot say. Of course, the list ‍of things you are better off ⁢avoiding in conversation is extensive, but the choice‌ to do so or⁣ not ​is free. ‍Words and actions come⁢ with⁣ consequences, so many people self-censor simply ‌because they do not wish to argue or be casually labeled with an overused descriptor.

Here,‌ the lack of freedom ⁣of‌ speech relates‍ less⁤ to what I shouldn’t say, and more to what I must say. This side of freedom pertains to those things which we are expected to say, regardless of whether we wish to or not. So-called affirmations of identity, belief, ‍and other people’s ⁢choices are expected to be shared.⁤ Requiring students to share personal pronouns is not‍ free speech, it is compelled speech. While any person is free‌ to⁤ share ⁤what they wish to be called, others should also be free not to⁢ participate.

Whenever I am asked my pronouns, what I wish ⁣I could answer ‌with is nothing. Why am I forced to subscribe — with action —​ to someone else’s personal beliefs, or​ be accused as a hater or⁢ bigot?⁣ I do not hate these people’s beliefs, nor I do not care what you believe you are,⁣ I just ​do not share the same opinion ⁢and do ⁢not believe I should be required to exercise my ‍speech in accordance.

To reverse the example, I personally choose not to ⁤curse, ‌but I do not‍ force others not to⁢ — they are free to speak as they wish. ‍It doesn’t offend me either. I am confident in my own position, so I am⁤ unaffected​ by ⁢the positions of others. Why would their choice‍ offend me? It doesn’t physically ⁤harm me, and it ‌doesn’t rob me of my ‌own ​rights to​ speak, live, or worship ⁣freely.⁣ If everyone forced‍ their own beliefs⁣ on each other, who could possibly speak? When some voices are ⁢amplified and others​ are forced to participate, speech is⁢ no⁢ longer free.

The Suppression of Controversial Speakers

The ‍most visible imposition⁣ on speech​ at Harvard is​ against controversial speakers. The people who⁤ wish to judge the morality of ​intellectual speakers to such an extent as to⁣ violently protest them are so self-righteous that they value exclusively ​their own opinions. These ​are the same people who fight the ⁤loudest for social equity. A proclaimed conviction for justice and equality is exposed as a deeper belief that only one set of beliefs is acceptable, ​and all others should be⁢ forcibly suppressed.

One of the most damning pieces of evidence is that 27% of students in the bottom five ranked schools of FIRE’s report​ believe it is acceptable to⁢ use violence to stop campus speech, and 45% ⁣say‍ that it is acceptable to block other students⁣ from attending ‌a speech. ​By the numbers alone, this is glaring evidence that students do not believe that others should have the ⁢freedom to speak or listen how they wish.

I recently⁤ passed ⁢a sign in ⁣Harvard Square that asked, “How tightly should hateful speech be regulated on campus?” ‌My ‌response is, who exactly‍ defines subjects and ​speakers who are hateful? One member of the community might consider a pro-life speaker to be hateful, while another might view a pro-choice⁤ activist as hateful. ⁤Isn’t that the whole point of free speech and thought? One person should not get to decide who⁢ and⁤ what is morally superior and worthy of being heard, rather, the community gets to show its support through attendance.

The Harvard Administration’s Failure to Defend Free Speech

Finally, the most embarrassing and ⁢predictable part of the entire FIRE report is that the Harvard Administration has proven it will not ‍stand ‌up and defend ‌free speech ​on its campus. It was penalized ‌for such a lack ‍of action in the scoring system. By ignoring‌ the issue at hand, Harvard assumes that protecting free speech is no ‌longer relevant — proof of just how much of a⁤ reality speech‌ suppression has become. For an⁤ institution that holds such intellectual power, earned through the ⁤claims of true exploratory research and diversity of thought, it proves over and over ‌that this is a fallacious shell. Its intentions are clear — indoctrinate rather than educate; force scientific conclusions that support political narratives;‍ and silence anyone whose intellect and ​voice stand in the way of these goals.

Elsie Halvorsen is a senior at ‌Harvard College, class of‍ 2024.

The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent ‌those ​of The Daily Wire.

What steps can universities take to⁢ protect and‌ promote free speech on campus

Ence ⁣to shut down controversial speakers. This is⁤ a dangerous and troubling trend, as it goes‍ against the very ⁣foundations of free⁤ speech and ‌open⁣ dialogue. College ⁣campuses should ‍be a place where ideas are challenged, debated,⁢ and ⁣explored, not silenced and shut⁣ down.

It is worth noting that Harvard‌ is‍ not alone ​in facing challenges to free speech⁤ on campus. Many other prestigious ‌institutions grapple with ⁤similar ⁤issues. However, for a university that prides ‌itself on‌ being at the forefront of academic excellence and intellectual discourse, ⁢this ranking should⁤ serve as ⁢a wake-up call.

The suppression of free speech not only stifles intellectual growth and diversity of thought, but⁢ it also creates an atmosphere of fear and conformity. When students and​ faculty ⁤feel hesitant to express their opinions⁤ or engage in meaningful⁤ discussions, the​ entire learning ⁣experience suffers.

Universities have a responsibility to protect and promote free speech, even if it means allowing for uncomfortable or controversial viewpoints. It is through the clash of ideas that we are able to broaden our⁤ perspectives,‍ challenge our​ assumptions, and ultimately grow as individuals.

In order to address ‌the issue of ⁢free ⁤speech on campus,⁤ universities must⁣ actively foster an environment that encourages⁣ open ‍dialogue and respectful debates. This includes establishing⁤ policies ‍that protect ‍freedom of speech, promoting ‌tolerance and inclusiveness, and⁣ encouraging diverse perspectives.

Moreover, administrators and faculty‍ members must take ​a stand ⁤in defending free speech, ⁣even when it ‌may ​be unpopular or controversial. They⁤ must lead⁣ by example and demonstrate that intellectual freedom is a fundamental value that should be cherished and protected.

Additionally, students⁢ play a crucial role in​ shaping the ‌campus climate for free‌ speech.⁣ They must be willing to engage in civil discourse, actively listen to opposing viewpoints,‌ and challenge their own beliefs. By fostering a culture of open-mindedness⁣ and respect, students can help create an environment where ⁢free speech thrives.

It ⁤is important to remember that the purpose ⁤of⁣ a university is not to shield students from⁣ discomfort or protect them from ideas they may find ​challenging. Rather, it is to equip them with the skills and knowledge necessary to⁤ navigate⁤ a complex and diverse world. By embracing free speech and allowing for a‌ wide ⁢range of opinions to be expressed,⁢ universities can fulfill this mission and truly prepare their students for the real world.

In conclusion, the ranking⁣ of⁣ Harvard as the worst college‌ campus for free speech serves as a stark reminder of the challenges ‍faced by universities ​in maintaining an ​environment that fosters open dialogue and intellectual‍ growth. While Harvard is not alone in facing ⁢these challenges, it is crucial for institutions of higher education to prioritize and⁣ protect free speech. Only through the free exchange of ideas can ‌true ‍understanding and ⁣progress be achieved.