The modern university plays an enormous role in civil society. The existence of an institution devoted to intellectual pursuits is an inspiring testament to the power of humanity. The university is greater than the individual, for the university exists long after students have graduated and professors have retired. However, if individuals do not protect a devotion to intellectual integrity at every moment, our potential to elevate the mind atrophies. The university is a breeding ground of ideas, which eventually become the university's legacy; the ideas that come out of a university by way of its alumni penetrate the crevices of society, present and future.
But the university's stirring missions and possibilities do not come without a price. As the repository of ideas and intellectual experimentation, the university must accept responsibility as a force that makes an impact on individual institutions and lives.
On Sept. 17, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers spoke at Cambridge's Memorial Church. He challenged professors who advocate Harvard's divestment from Israeli companies, citing the rise of anti-Semitism worldwide and their unparalleled and unjust criticism of Israel's government and policies.
Harvard professors who petitioned for divestment from Israel criticized Summers' speech, complaining that Summers was stifling academic debate. In accusing Summers of dismantling open dialogue on campus, these professors missed something essential. It is Summers, as the president of the university, who enables free speech on campus. The president is the liaison between the university, the board of trustees and the outside world. By ensuring the financial continuance of the university, the president ultimately protects the future of the growth of ideas. Summers, as a professional and as an intellectual, is a product and a part of the university system. As such, he can contribute to its dialogue. Summers never said that the professors must curb their ideas; rather, he informed them of deleterious effects and implications.
In his speech on the first day of Harvard's fall term, Summers set a precedent for other university presidents. He recognized an intellectual and moral issue, and he spoke out. Summers realized that Harvard professors influence a far greater sphere of people than simply the students enrolled in their classes. Harvard is an institution with the weight of $17.5 billion behind it. Summers refused to allow such a powerful economic presence to throw ideas around recklessly.
In choosing to speak, Summers took a big step. Taking a controversial position can put a university president in a precarious position, especially on issues that address complicated political and philosophical concerns. After all, a president's actions can impact directly the university's capacity to fundraise and can indirectly impact the health of its endowment, a basic sign of a university's strength. Moreover, the president must be cautious of taking extreme positions because taking a stand cannot be separated from the power of the office or the power of the institution.
So when should a president speak out?
A president is the gatekeeper of the university. As part of this responsibility, the president must also guarantee that the university does not become a haven for hateful statements made under the guise of free thought and with the authority of the academy. In short, the president is protecting society from the power of the academy to abuse its voice. The president must provide accountability for the ideas grown inside the university's buildings.
Summers rightly realized that divestment from Israel was fueled as much by latent anti-Semitism as by legitimate concern for the potential of Palestinian self-governance. Hence, Harvard's divestment from Israel would be tantamount to Harvard's endorsement of anti-Semitism. As such, Summers acted as a Harvard's protector. He saw Israel being unfairly targeted by intellectuals. By speaking out, he did his best to keep Harvard's name from becoming attached to what is anti-Semitism masquerading as open dialogue.
When a president assesses the prudence of making a public statement, he or she should consider certain boundaries. Is a speech meant to enable the growth of free dialogue, or is it meant to further a personal political agenda? The danger is the opportunity to abuse the power inherent in spearheading an economically powerful institution. The commitment and careful watch of the board of trustees, however, provides the necessary check to the president's actions. A president who is overly vocal is far rarer a problem than one who is too often silent.
In his Convocation address on Sept. 24, our own President James Wright spoke in the same vein as Summers did a few days before. Wright said, "Those in the racial majority must scrutinize and then set aside one especially deleterious assumption: the notion that students of color are the 'other.'" In his speech, Wright took an important step toward addressing Dartmouth's problems of race relations and racial consciousness. He made it clear that racist speech will not be tolerated as part of Dartmouth's forum for intellectual debate. In essence, by protecting his students and the greater community from hatemongering speech, Wright stayed true to Dartmouth's ideals of education and dialogue. Moreover, he was ensuring that the university would not allow racist ideas to foment and penetrate a greater society without a counter-dialogue.
In condemning racist speech on campus, Wright acted in the truest aspect of his position as president. If Wright continues to speak out against dialogue that advocates dangerous action, Dartmouth will ultimately be a more open institution.