The president of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics has declared that the lesson of the blowout 2024 election is not a need for greater inclusivity and balance at the school but, you guessed it, the express abandonment of nonpartisanship going forward. While many would argue that the school left neutrality behind years ago, Pratyush Mallick is calling in an op-ed for The Harvard Crimson for an official change. It would align the Institute with the building “resistance” and reject not just nonpartisanship but neutrality in its programs and grants.
After the election, I wrote that people hoping for a moment of introspection after the Trump victory will likely be disappointed, and “the rage in the media and academia will only likely increase.” That has unfortunately proven to be the case. The meltdown after the presidential election appears to be building rather than subsiding with attacks from the left on male, female, and minority voters as racists, misogynists, or despotic dupes.
The call for partisanship at Harvard is not unique. Before the election, I criticized Wesleyan University President Michael Roth for urging universities to abandon neutrality and work openly for the election of Kamala Harris. Immediately after the election, Roth doubled down and promised to join the “resistance” against Trump’s “authoritarian” regime.
A few weeks before the election, I participated in a debate at Harvard Law School over the lack of free speech protections and intellectual diversity at Harvard.
This year, Harvard found itself in a familiar spot on the annual ranking of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE): dead last among 251 universities and colleges.
The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”
Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”
According to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).
So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than three percent identify as “conservative” rather than 35 percent nationally.
Among law school faculty who donated more than $200 to a political party, 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to Democrats.
While Professor Randall Kennedy, in the debate, dismissed the notion that Harvard should look more like America, the problem is that it does not even look like Massachusetts. Even as one of the most liberal states in the country, roughly one third of the voters still identify as Republican.
The student body shows the same bias of selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative.
Yet, the Institute of Politics student executive committee president wants it to be more official.
”Today, Harvard’s Institute of Politics has a choice to make too. Nonpartisanship — a founding principle of the IOP — is no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment. Donald Trump’s imminent return to power underscores the importance of the IOP finally breaking from our long-standing commitment to it.”
So, rather than considering the implications of a majority of voters rejecting the narrative of the media and political establishment, the idea is to move even further toward orthodoxy and intolerance.
Mallick wrote that as the Trump administration moves forward, “we must resist platforming anti-democratic voices in the guise of nonpartisanship.” Those “anti-democratic voices” are likely to be found on one end of the political spectrum.
In a truly Orwellian twist, Mallick added, “In fact, we must strive to defend principles of democracy, due process, and justice precisely to ensure that we can continue carrying out our age-old mission of nonpartisanship.”
So, the Institute would become partisan in order to fulfill its mission of nonpartisanship.
As I discuss in my book, The Indispensable Right, we have seen the same abandonment of neutrality in the media with disastrous results.
Students in “J Schools” today are being told to abandon neutrality and objectivity since, as former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has explained, “all journalism is activism.”
After a series of interviews with over 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this shift. As Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, stated: “Objectivity has got to go.”
The result has been the increasing rejection of mainstream media in favor of new media. The falling revenue and readership have not produced any more introspection among leading figures in the media. After the election, various figures such as MSNBC host Mika Brezinski did not acknowledge how media bias has led to the decline but instead blamed the election in part on the availability of opposing views as “massive disinformation.” Others called for free speech to be curtailed to prevent such contrary information from affecting another election.
Ironically, the Harvard Institute has a number of advisory board members accused of such bias in the past, including CNN’s Abby Philip. While there are a couple of Republicans, it has a majority of current and former Democratic politicians and advisers, including Michael Nutter, David Axelrod, LaTosha Brown, William D. Delahunt, and Joseph Kennedy III.
In the end, the Institute’s formal commitment to partisanship is unlikely to matter. While Mallick insists that “nonpartisanship—a founding principle of the IOP—is no longer a tenable position in today’s political environment,” it has long been out of vogue at Harvard.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
N.B.: After this column ran, the director of the Institute wrote a letter to the editor at the Harvard Crimson saying that the Institute would remain committed to a nonpartisan approach.
Being that a Harvard Law Grad gets a hiring preference in the DoJ is anyone suprised at their lawfare against Republicans?
* Yes, public money is used by universities. Foreign money is used by universities. The approach would need to include both sources.
Universities are a form of think tanks for the best intellects. The US has approx 100 Nobel people on staff. That’s more than all other nations combined. We call upon them when problems arise.
This social skewing should disappear with standards. Laws not permitting foreign donations are necessary. As Iran said you’re welcome to attend their schools. The middle east donates to Harvard and it is no surprise the sudden rise in antisemitism. That’s the source.
Mr. Pratyush is not acceptable. Neutrality is necessary. I’m doubting his intelligence and the reason he was accepted at Yale possibly pushing aside a more intelligent pupil. Did his parents immigrate for a purpose? What was it? Brahman or untouchable caste?
The faculty is skewed. How is that corrected? Ask MIT? Possibly ask Ken Griffen or Elon Musk out there in the world? Maybe…
Disturbing of course…
* Pratyush may simply be a victim of peer pressure and a skewed faculty.
There are numerous reasons why a voter would choose this or that candidate. This party registration metric has nothing to do with principles or causes, foreign or domestic policy, or anything that matters, it’s tribal signaling and a loyalty test, but to whom? Which candidate will be disqualifying four years from now? Who will be the target of the two-minute hate next semester?
This crazy discrimination also leaves out the half of the country that doesn’t bother to register or vote.
Jonathan: It appears there is some denial on your blog–some who think it is a myth that DJT has an “enemies” list. I know that’s hard to believe despite everything that DJT has said over the last 4 years. Of course, it’s not that he keeps a list of people in his back pocket of those he wants to go after when Jan. 20th rolls around. But there are hundreds of posts and speeches by DJT that clearly shows his intent to seek retribution against his political opponents he calls the “enemies within”.
For example, in June of this year DJT was on Dr. Phil’s show. The Dr. asked DJT: “I think you have so much to do, you don’t have time to get even”. DJT replied: “Well revenge does take time. I will say that. And sometimes revenge can be justified”. Then last Thursday, Mike Davis, who along with Ken Paxton in Texas, is on the short list for AG, was on the Benny Johnson’s podcast. Davis told Johnson he was prepared with 5 lists of DJT’s enemies: “I will rain hell on Washington DC. I have five lists ready to go and they’re growing. List number one–we’re gonna fire–we’re gonna fire a lot of people in the executive branch of the deep state. Number two–we’re gonna indict. We’re gonna indict Joe Biden and Hunter Biden and James Biden and every other scum ball sleazebag Biden, except for the 5-yr-old granddaughter…Number three–we’re gonna deport. We’re going to deport a lot of people, 10 million…We’re going to put kids in cages. It’s going to be glorious. We’re going to detain a lot of people in the DC Gulag and Gitmo…”
Davis is also preparing a pardon list of the J. 6 insurrectionists who DJT calls “political prisoners”. Last week Davis was on “The Benny Show” and issued a threat directly at NY AG Letitia James: ” We’re not messing around this time and we will put your fat a** in prison for conspiracy against rights”. Don Jr. call Davis “the tip of the spear defending my father from these corrupt Democrat prosecutors”.
Need any further evidence of what kind of retribution DJT intends for his political “enemies”? The list is too long to repeat here. Suffice it to say that anyone on this blog who thinks DJT is not prepared to carry out a vendetta needs to see a therapist right away!
Yea but how many have abused their power? They should face justice- the real kind. The American people know DJT was abused by the DC establishment, and also know if not corrected they could be next. That’s part of the reason Harris was soundly rejected.
We can only hope that Mr Trump will dole out some righteous retribution!
And J6 prisoners are not ‘insurrectionists’ you moron – they are political prisoners held illegally for voicing their opinions. An ‘insurrection’ by definition would need armed aggression and an attempt to overthrow a government – neither happened.
ygh
make it legal to hunt them
I completely support the payback.
Obama made life hell for 8 YEARS against POTUS TRUMP.
It is past time to fight back and destroy them all.
Dennis – I have a little different take. I think there’s a lot of “huffing and puffing” going on by all those in the Trump camp, but not necessarily do they mean “all of it” but yes, “some of it.” Trumps retribution should come by success in “righting this ship.” However, those that honestly broke the law or are found guilty of lying to destroy Trump and/or his previous administration, should be fired and/or brought to justice. That list should be short and full of “larger than life” individuals that think they were above the law. That’s just my take. I’m praying he’s not focused on a “retribution march!” He has a mandate, hopefully/prayerfully he’ll get things done for the American people! Jim C.
So I guess you think what all those people did to Trump was okay. I hope he not only throws their asses in jail, but that he also convicts some of them of Treason and hangs them~ They deserve it!!!
#1 priority is the law breakers. We need trials so everyone can see the truth. That Obama was a seditious traitor that makes Nixon look like a saint. While I’d love to see him face the justice the traitor deserves I’ll settle for humiliation.
Yeah he’ll be letting people out of prison who have been held, some without charges for years. One person died on that day and she was a Trump supporter and Military veteran who was shot thru a window by a lazy and incompetent officer.
I fully expect and voted for him to go after his enemies, which are my enemies.
Lawfare perps have to be prosecuted for ‘insurrection’
I am thoroughly enjoying watching our leftists friends have their meltdown. Their denial of reality is quite amazing.