From the Editor’s Desk: On Free Speech and its Use

In a free speech incident on November 6, 2002 that drew national attention, Nick Will resigned from his position as Editor-in-Chief at The Harbus. Forty-eight hours prior, the Dean of Harvard Business School and several senior staff had called him into a 7a.m. Monday morning meeting to discuss the newspaper’s publication of a controversial cartoon. The cartoon—whose primary target was the persistent malfunctioning of HBS’s Career Link interview platform, 12Twenty’s distant ancestor—referred to it as “CareerDink” and Career Services staff as “incompetent morons.”

Publishing negative coverage in a newspaper, especially at HBS, could be the easiest decision in the world, if one is a free speech absolutist; harder, if one is an institutionalist. Such decisions, however, are usually protected by the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This is the necessary condition upon which all independent newspapers are founded, The Harbus being little exception.

When, however, does this paper choose to exercise its right? It is a question of editorial judgment.

My thoughts on the matter are as follows. Past performance, contrary to investing wisdom, is a decent guarantee of future results. There will always be administrative imbroglios, communications fiascos, groundswells of popular complaint. There will always, too, be students that interpret standards as mere suggestions, or students that break rules in bad faith. Nothing is new under the sun. I concern myself less with pondering if these incidents happen, but rather how they are addressed and resolved—particularly, how relevant parties engage with change, and what role free speech in public plays in that change.

While nothing like the 2002 cartoon appears in this issue, we must set forth one principle. Understand that closed-door dialogue cannot always meet the demands of the moment. There is merit in public discourse, even occasionally inflammatory public discourse, for the rare rearing of the latter’s ugly head reveals where frustration curdles into anger—a signaling anger that, like the inversion of the yield curve, clearly tells the other party: “You must change course.” This contact catalyzes a deeper understanding of the productive path forward.

The front cover of this paper features issues that have brought consternation to many members of our community over the last month. We have heard the administration’s revised weather policy, which was communicated through a meeting with Student Association and section representatives, as well as to the broader student body over an email blast last Friday evening. I encourage you to read it. Deans Datar and Crispi should be lauded for their responsiveness, their willingness to admit error, and their clarity of action looking forward. Some of these elements were missing in the fall of 2002. That said, what our community has not heard—and what this issue provides—is students’ opinions beyond policy feedback, in the form of an op-ed and satire.

Critically, in this environs and others like it, The Harbus does not endorse any one faction, even if its content seems to. Our pages merely elevate those who decide to speak. We serve as a forum for free exchange: a marketplace of ideas any can choose to participate in. So long as every stall is set up in good faith, our marketplace operates in good order. None of this issue’s perspectives, in our judgment, upends that principle.

Now, moving on: There are other interesting items in this paper that do not deserve to be swallowed by the news of the day. First, congratulations are in order to Dimitri Henry and Akaash Preetham, our newest Student Association Co-Presidents. The Harbus had the opportunity last week to moderate a town hall for them alongside Kevin Truong and Brianna Rivera—all of whom put in valiant effort into their campaigns. You will hear from those upon whose work the incoming SA administration will build next year. In this issue, our EC leadership describes their forward posture as well as priorities set and achieved during their term.

Reading along, you will also find a reflection on our relationship with time; writing on the ethics of wealth; alumni stories on how they landed their jobs in tech; an op-ed against the Pentagon’s decision to sever its relationship with Harvard; a profile of a student athlete; an archival feature from 2016 on HBS community reactions during the presidential election; and more. Student perspectives abound. Of additional note is our edited, abridged version of Andrew Carnegie’s 1889 essay “The Gospel of Wealth,” which we believe is valuable reading for those both familiar and not.

Some of you may read this paper and think its agenda has an ideological bent. Some of you may read our columns and fear your writing does not match their tenor. I am looking, specifically, at you, my Friedman-loving finance brothers and sisters; and you, campus conservatives and libertarians, who are brow-beat in every class by majoritarian finger-wagging. Send forth a challenge to the paradigm and let us publish it.

Our philosophy is fairly simple. Say the thing. Do the difficult work of forming a view and submitting it to others. Let it be disciplined—applauded, improved, defeated in the free market; let ego detach itself from outcome. In the long run, Schumpeter’s creative destruction will lay beautiful waste to all our ideas. We will hence be better off for it.

Alex Qi (MBA '27) is from Irvine, California. He studied philosophy, politics, and physics at New York University. Prior to HBS, he worked in corporate strategy and M&A at Northrop Grumman in Virginia.