As part of the months-long battle between Harvard and the Trump administration, the university is reportedly considering the creation of a center for conservative scholarship. With an expected cost between $500 million and $1 billion, the center could be Harvard’s way of signaling its willingness to change course on intellectual diversity. Yet the proposed initiative may not be enough to address the longstanding issues of politicization which permeate Harvard’s many departments.

A center for conservative thought can serve several important purposes. It provides conservative-leaning faculty with both financial and social support, allowing them to pursue research without feeling pressured to conform to the progressive orthodoxies that dominate many academic fields. It can also create space for meaningful relationships between conservative students and faculty. These centers offer programs which introduce perspectives outside the prevailing campus ideology, broadening the intellectual climate for the entire community. Surveys suggest that only 3% of Harvard’s faculty identify as conservative. On elite American campuses, where viewpoint diversity is limited, conservative centers could be a step toward greater intellectual pluralism.

It’s worth noting that Harvard officials had considered similar initiatives “for years,” but only now seem to be taking the idea seriously — just as the university faces mounting political pressure from the Trump administration. The motivation behind the center matters. If it’s created to merely appease political critics, it risks being branded as an “outsider” on campus, limiting its influence. It’s not enough for conservative ideas to survive: they must also engage meaningfully with competing perspectives in order to thrive.

Harvard wouldn’t be alone if this plan comes to fruition. Stanford University hosts the Hoover Institution, a well-known conservative academic center. Yet, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)’s free speech rankings, tolerance for conservative views at both Harvard and Stanford are similar, ranking 92nd and 97th out of 251 schools. Conservative centers have the potential to promote civil discourse, but their impact depends heavily on the broader campus culture and the leadership’s commitment to upholding open inquiry.

Clearly, Harvard needs to take additional steps to reshape the campus environment beyond following the lead of the Hoover Institution. One starting point involves re-examining faculty hiring practices to discourage the appointment of activism-oriented professors. These academics undermine viewpoint diversity by infecting what should be scholarly debate with political gamesmanship. They intimidate and discourage dissent among faculty who value honest inquiry.

For instance, Cornell University hired a tenure-track Communication professor who claims in her teaching statement that she defies “Eurocentric and Westernized epistemologies” such as “listening to all sides” because it provides “political cover for white hegemonic social practices [her italics]”. A professor who isn’t willing to listen to all views is someone who will impede free expression. It’s perhaps unsurprising that this same professor was arrested last year for disrupting a campus event.

In some cases, more drastic action will be required to curtail the influence of censorious faculty. Certain academic departments — particularly those founded with activist aims or heavily influenced by critical theory — have strayed far from serious scholarship. In many cases, these departments no longer encourage open inquiry or intellectual diversity. If they cannot be meaningfully reformed to support a culture of viewpoint tolerance, universities should consider phasing them out.

The creation of a conservative center at Harvard should be evaluated in light of the university’s broader intentions and policy decisions. And while critics should appreciate this gesture at reform, there are further steps the university needs to take to address its issues. Re-examining faculty hiring and phasing out activist departments are much cheaper than a shiny new center, but they require far more political willpower. Harvard may yet muster the courage to make these reforms. But that will depend on the outcome of its ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration.

---

Neetu Arnold is a Paulson Policy Analyst at the Manhattan Institute and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on X @neetu_arnold

neetu_arnold

---