Should We Punish Each Other for Our Political Beliefs?

The hidden costs of self-censorship at HBS.

“This is a safe space, right?”

I’d never heard anyone use that phrase before. The implication is obvious: spaces aren’t safe by default. Speaking up could cost you something.

The first RC semester last year began just 77 days before the 2024 election. Unaware of American social norms, I followed the ones I had at home and asked a group of new classmates over lunch for whom they were planning to vote. I quickly learned this was inappropriate.

Back at my old job, heated debates over healthcare or the death penalty filled our lunch breaks. People argued fiercely, then shrugged it off and went back to work together. No one kept a list of who said what. At HBS, it feels different. Silence sometimes feels smarter than honesty.

A Harvard College survey found that two-thirds of undergraduates feel uncomfortable sharing political views. While there’s no HBS equivalent, the vibe feels the same. Why the gap? Perhaps it’s because our classmates aren’t just classmates. They’re future investors, cofounders, references, bosses. Why risk offending someone who might hold your career in their hands? Better to “talk less, smile more.”

But beneath this silence lies the real question: should political beliefs influence the professional opportunities we give each other? Because the choice to self-censor both at HBS and in the workforce only makes sense if the answer is yes.

The Case for Ideological Discrimination at Work

The provocative book, When Is Discrimination Wrong?, distinguishes between ordinary and wrongful discrimination. Refusing to hire an unlicensed pilot is discrimination, but it’s based on merit, not prejudice. Refusing to hire someone based on race, sex, or gender identity, on the other hand, is wrongful because it assumes lesser worth, rather than lack of qualification. By that logic, ideology could be a legitimate reason to discriminate. Unlike immutable traits, it’s flexible and chosen — and choices have consequences. Employers may therefore see it as reasonable to check whether a person’s ideology aligns with their mission.

Many organizations already do this. Patagonia seeks employees passionate about protecting the planet. Chick-fil-A wants people aligned with their faith-driven mission. If companies sell worldviews as much as products, ideology becomes part of the job description. But what about more controversial cases of mission alignment, like a peace-based NGO refusing to hire veterans, or a women’s health startup refusing to hire pro-life staff? And if Ben & Jerry’s decides it won’t hire pro-life staff, is that different?

Perhaps our own self-censorship at HBS is just preparation for what awaits us in the workplace. National surveys show that over 68% of employees now avoid sharing political views at work (up from 42% in the past three years), and more than half fear that speaking openly could hurt their career progression. At HBS, that means sharing a hot take in class could mean being judged for it and putting future business opportunities at risk.

The Case Against Ideological Discrimination at Work

The problem is that ideological sorting risks creating a segregated society. A world in which Democrats hire Democrats and Republicans hire Republicans is one in which workplaces become echo chambers.

That’s bad for both democracy and business. Harvard Business Review found that cognitively diverse teams solve problems up to three times faster and can enhance innovation by as much as 20% compared to those without cognitive diversity. If we defend DEI initiatives on the grounds that diversity drives value, can we extend the same logic to ideological diversity? Companies may find short-term comfort in screening for ideological alignment, but over time, they risk losing the pluralism that fuels both creativity and resilience.

As for our democratic institutions, democracy depends on practice, not just procedures. In a functioning democracy, citizens need to learn how to work alongside those with whom they disagree. Workplaces are a rare arena in which people with different beliefs connect through the pursuit of shared goals, but if employees are split along ideological lines, those habits wither, and both sides drift further apart.

Debates about ideological discrimination often center on the content of specific beliefs rather than the structure of the argument itself. A progressive may say it’s fine to exclude Republicans because they’re bigots who likely hate immigrants, while a conservative may argue that it’s fine to exclude Democrats because they’re woke radicals who will likely cancel everyone. Both sides justify punishing the other while demanding protection for themselves. We’ve reached a place where disagreement itself feels dangerous, and labeling the other side as morally broken or irrelevant feels easier than engaging.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

Most of us agree there are beliefs that clearly deny the dignity of others (e.g., racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice) and should not be tolerated in the workplace. But in practice, the line we use to decide with whom to work or whom to befriend gets drawn much earlier. Too many have told me that they could never be close with a classmate who voted differently in the last election because it automatically means they are XYZ. If “voting differently” itself becomes disqualifying, then half the country is untouchable. That’s not protecting people from harm; that’s shrinking the circle of tolerance until it fits only our own reflections.

The Illusion of Choice

Supporters of ideological discrimination insist that beliefs are chosen. But in reality, political identity maps tightly to background. Rural working-class Americans statistically lean conservative. Urban, highly-educated elites lean progressive. Women disproportionately identify as feminists compared to men. So if a company refuses to hire a feminist on ideological grounds, it is, in effect, excluding women on the basis of an immutable trait. And parallels can be found across religions, ethnicities, and nationalities. 

When we punish belief, we often punish background. What looks like “choice” may just be circumstance. And by surrounding ourselves only with people who think like us, we also lose the best way of sharpening our own ideas: by testing them against those who don’t.

So… What’s It Going to Be?

If punishing political beliefs really is legitimate, then our self-censorship makes sense. Stay silent now, protect your career later.

But if punishing beliefs is not legitimate, then our silence is something between pointless and counterproductive, and we lose the chance to learn from one another. If HBS is a training ground for leadership, then it should also be a training ground for pluralism. Not the easy kind, where we applaud differences we already like, but the hard kind, where we make space for ideas that unsettle us.

I may have my take, and you may have yours, but in the end, it will be up to us — not the law, not the HBS community guidelines — to decide how we treat each other. 

Shira Amit (MBA ‘26) is from Tel Aviv, Israel. She graduated from the Hebrew University with a degree in Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics and is a UWC alumna. Prior to HBS, Shira served as a Product Manager at Wix.