So many of us come to Harvard, because it’s Harvard. Our crest grandly inspires us to pursue truth, but ‘veritas,’ emblazoned on our crimson shield has started to seem more and more evasive. Harvard has a problem with problems. From student mental health issues, to student suicide, to #OccupyHarvard, to academic integrity, like any perfectionist parent, Harvard just doesn’t seem to like having aberrations and outliers among its students.
In a sense, it’s an attitude that is understandable. Reputation is and should be immensely important to both the Harvard administration and community. Harvard strives to retain its high popularity and esteem in intellectual circles in the increasingly competitive market of private education. Obviously, we should value our reputation, but at what price? A price at which students themselves feel sidelined? A price at which an overwhelming student opinion on sexual assault policy is ignored?
In their admissions process, Harvard selects students from different backgrounds and of different talents. The University simply cannot expect these diverse students to each succeed in their individual fields, while successfully being an amalgam of problem-free, stress-free and illness-free academics. In every freshman orientation session, we are told that we “are not the admissions mistake,” that we ought to risk failure, push ourselves and make mistakes, because that’s what a university education is supposed to be about. But the truth is that mistakes at Harvard are costly; surrounded by an elite, highly competitive student body, each mistake seems crushing and debilitating. If Harvard wants to continue to encourage its students to take risks and grow, it needs to start providing a better safety net.
One often hears that Harvard is the bastion of liberals. It was surprising to me, therefore, when after the student mental health rally, a friend described the student body and administration as definitively “conservative.” Truly, at Harvard, we are all conservative in that we initially resist change – to academic policy, the University’s alcohol policy, and investment policies. The administration is content with the status quo, and the student body seems too busy keeping itself afloat to invest in activism. Perhaps now is the time for both the student body and administration to bend towards each other in compromise.
Harvard students love Harvard. And for that reason, the University ought not to shy away from criticism because they think that acceptance of it will diminish our reputation, or that any kind of change will alter our high ratings on those regularly published (seemingly arbitrary) rankings. If anything, the University, and specifically the College, directly addressing controversies and issues will help them set a better precedent for colleges around the country. In the last year, Harvard has received a substantial amount of accusations of apathy against the concerns of its student body, demonstrated at least once in a student-wide referendum. The mental health issue at Harvard is the administration’s chance to demonstrate their empathy. Student anger and outrage is a sign of something deeper – a hope that we can accept and grow from the mistakes we’ve made, change systems no matter how entrenched their problems may seem, and ultimately a hope that our Harvard can do far, far better.