The decision by Harvard University Health Services to shutter the Stillman Infirmary at the end of this academic year has provoked widespread outcry and complaint. Stillman, which provides urgent care after regular operating hours, is seen by many students as a life-saving service. From numerous posts on Facebook to an emergency email from the Undergraduate Council, it is clear the decision took nearly every student by surprise. To me, it seems that the way students were informed is a huge part of the outcry: instead of receiving an email from HUHS explaining the changes, presumably including an explanation of how they will replace Stillman, the news was delivered (at least to me) as a “BREAKING NEWS” alert from the student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson. The secretive nature of the decision as well as the seeming lack of student input seemed to suggest that HUHS had something to hide.
UC President Gus Mayopoulos and Vice President Sietse Goffard argued in an email to the student body that “more information regarding changes to UHS will be sent to all students very soon.” We should certainly withhold judgment until all the facts are clear, especially since HUHS is indicating that they have replacement overnight care services planned. Yet if so, these changes should have been communicated earlier. Had the University itself informed students of the changes, there would have been an opportunity to explain the full details. Instead, students are relying on the Crimson’s story, possibly incomplete, to which HUHS now has to react.
This seems to be part of a broader problem with the Harvard administration: too often, the Crimson seems to announce key information faster than University officials. Recently, students criticized the University response to death threats on campus that were made primarily against Asian-American women, citing a failure to acknowledge the racial nature of the threats. Some students have alleged that the University’s response was racially problematic, but whether you believe the motivation for this lack of information from Harvard officials was racially tinged or merely ineffective communication, there is little debate that the Crimson shouldn’t have been the outlet for discovering such troubling and important news.
To be clear, I am not criticizing the Crimson or its investigative journalism. Indeed, I am myself comping (Harvard-speak for “trying out for”) the Crimson. Had Crimson journalists not been so proactive, some of these developments would have been reported late – or worse, not at all. The question, instead, should be why it is necessary for the Crimson to fill this role. Going forward, the University should communicate important news directly to students so that they can ensure that all the facts (or at least their perspective) are communicated effectively and reliably to everyone involved. Students deserve to hear directly about news and information that affects their lives, and Harvard officials should respect that right.