The Editorial Board once described Stefanik as set on a “relentless pursuit of political influence at a glaring cost to morality” and “the worst we could be.” We would do well to heed our own advice.
A “transit activist” would want to promote transit as an alternative to private vehicle usage. Joan Pickett, for all her posing, does not do that.
The hard truth, for all of us who have enjoyed the benefits of a Harvard education, is that Harvard’s exclusive admissions policies have always bolstered white supremacy and economic inequality. To truly address the harm we have caused, we must challenge the practice of hyper-selective admission itself.
To the Editor: Sharing the Experiences and Perspectives of Professor Schrag's Former Students and Postdocs
As Professor Daniel P. Schrag’s former students and postdoctoral researchers, we believe whole-heartedly that his scientific mentorship, professional guidance, and personal support have been essential to our careers. We further believe that the Crimson article published on April 28, 2023 fails to fully and accurately represent Professor Schrag’s outstanding legacy of scientific mentorship.
We assert that Black students should not have to live in fear of the police force being used as a weapon against them. We condemn the University’s failure to, at large, protect its Black community’s emotional and physical wellbeing in the aftermath of such trauma. We demand that the University take action to repair the manifestations of the inaction and to ensure that the victims of the phone call are served justice, the safety of Black Harvard students is maintained, and that in future incidents, the mistakes from this situation are not repeated.
I am troubled by the persistent use of clichéd antisemitic dog whistles and canards in Roth’s claims surrounding his rescinded fellowship. I would have expected the so-called “godfather” of human rights to be more cautious about perpetuating harmful antisemitic myths and conspiracy theories. One need not have a Ph.D. in Human Rights to recognize the dog whistles Roth continues to amplify.
Sprinkling the word “allegedly” into a sentence is not some kind of potion that magically provides a pretense of journalistic objectivity in an article that otherwise unskeptically parrots unsubstantiated claims around Roth’s fellowship. It is better journalism to say who is making the allegation, to check whether they have any evidence to support the claim, and to provide additional, alternative points of view.
This is exactly why The Crimson’s silence is so ironic. Even in its outrage over a matter of suppression of free speech because of outspokenness in support of Palestinian liberation, The Crimson has managed to paper over Palestine.
It is critical that The Crimson use its platform to share balanced and accurate information about student government with its readers. Prior to the collapse of the previous student government system, headlines regularly mentioned the types of projects the organization discussed and voted on. Today, that is the exception rather than the norm — and it isn’t due to a lack of initiatives.
Almost 200 current and former Harvard Law School students signed onto a letter last week calling on the school to redistribute any savings it receives from President Joe Biden’s loan forgiveness program to alumni in low-paying jobs.
As Jewish alumni from the Harvard/Radcliffe College Class of 1971, we write to voice our dismay with The Crimson’s editorial support for the Palestine Solidarity Committee’s mission and its endorsement of the campaign for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.
As faculty and officers of Harvard University who oppose racism and colonial violence in all its forms, we stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and self-determination.
We write in reaction to your editorial dated April 29th, in which you express unambiguous support for the BDS movement. It is a position with which we vehemently disagree.
We, as Crimson alumni, are writing in support of Harvard's Jewish community and the many others at Harvard who believe in the state of Israel’s right to exist, and to express our dismay at the current editorial direction of The Harvard Crimson, an institution to which we have all been devoted.
It takes no courage on campuses to oppose Israel’s existence. It takes great courage today to tell the complex truth about the history of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, which begins with the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to accept the two-state solution proposed by the United Nations.
In general I think the content of the Crimson should be up to undergraduates not alumni, and in the almost 30 years since I was president this is the first time I can remember that I am furious enough to write with a complaint.
I was disappointed, but not surprised to read Libby E. Tseng’s op-ed (April 9) “ To the class of 2026.” Her description of the student experience elucidates findings of our national study of higher education, in which nearly half of one thousand students across 10 disparate campuses view college principally as a means to build a resume and get a (first) job
I was disappointed to see The Crimson’s coverage of the Undergraduate Council general meeting that took place on Tuesday the 22nd.
We, the undersigned, write in strong opposition to the open letter signed by 38 Harvard faculty calling into question the sanctions against Professor John Comaroff. We are dismayed that these faculty members would openly align themselves against students who have lodged complaints about a tenured professor.