Harvard Shifts Focus, Limits Statements on External Issues
By On Tuesday, Harvard University stated that it would abstain from addressing issues that do not bear any direct connection with its purpose as an educational institution.
This shift could lead to an explanation as to why organizations such as Amnesty International issue fewer empathy statements regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine or Hama’s attacks on Israel. Some faculty who worked on the recommendations argued that such statements may bring an impression of bias during the selection process and may lead to disenfranchising some community members.
They implored Harvard to stick to its academic coreness and not to take sides in political discussions. Specifically, Harvard still can warn of its core function and actively defend its values in certain circumstances, noted law professor Noah Feldman. Some examples are expressing concern about the bill that would have suggested imposing taxes on large endowments or supporting affirmative actions in court.
Still, other people state that the universities will keep assuming the political relevance without saying it plainly. This discussion on whether Harvard should respond and what manner of response it should use whenever the University feels it has something to say about an issue as contentious as the confrontation between Israel and Palestine just heaped more heat into this debate.
However, Feldman admitted that it is not easy to make this switch of approaching the public with less information to accept within a company and with stakeholders. Like the Chicago Model concept of institutional neutrality, which is similar but dissimilar.
Related Articles:
What's your reaction?
