When Business School Avoids the Business of Leadership

At a school that claims to shape leaders, why are so few willing to lead?

When Harvard University President Alan M. Garber rebuffed the Trump Administration’s attempt to exert political influence over Harvard, he shattered a cardinal rule here at the HBS and got political. His message — principled, clear, and public — stood in sharp contrast to a culture on our campus, where political engagement is more often treated as a career liability than a leadership necessity.

To the outside observer, who, over the last year-and-a-half, has viewed Harvard as a hub of political activism, the business school might look unrecognizable. The 500-foot bridge separating us from the main campus has become as much a figurative as a physical gulf.

We often interpret that distance as a virtue. Let the undergrads protest; we’re here to innovate, create value, and lead companies. We’ve been told, both implicitly and explicitly, that speaking up comes with a cost to our reputations, future business relationships, and job prospects. In a community where relationships are currency, many students learn early that political engagement is a risk not worth taking. In other words, it’s better to stay quiet than risk alienating a recruiter, classmate, or potential investor. Over time, that instinct becomes ingrained, and silence turns into strategy.

But this performative neutrality sits awkwardly among the values HBS claims to uphold. The case method trains us to grapple with ambiguity, test opposing arguments, and make difficult decisions, all while balancing financial, operational, and strategic imperatives. We debate how to price life-saving drugs, respond to labor organizing, and weigh shareholder returns against stakeholder impacts, but when it comes to the real political and moral crises shaping the world beyond the walls of Aldrich or the boardroom, such as immigration policy, climate change, threats to civil liberties, and democratic instability, we fall silent.

At HBS, where we are supposedly preparing to become “leaders that make a difference in the world,” that silence is telling. It reveals a deeper misalignment: the model of business education is out of step with the current moment. In 2025, business leaders can no longer afford to ignore the political forces trying to reshape our institutions, markets, and social fabric. And yet, our education still treats those forces as peripheral distractions rather than defining challenges.

Last year, frustrated by this lack of discourse, we re-founded the HBS Democrats, Liberals, and Progressives Club. While the Conservatives Club remained active, its counterpart had been dormant for the past few years. The fact that such a space didn’t exist spoke volumes. It was inconceivable to us that HBS would approach a presidential election with only one side of the civic conversation represented.

As it turns out, the interest was there. Our debate watch parties packed Gallatin. Well over a dozen students traveled to Pennsylvania to knock on doors. On election night, hundreds in the HBS community from across the political spectrum gathered in Klarman with Professor Bob White to watch the returns. These weren’t ideological events; rather, they were expressions of civic curiosity — proof that students are eager to engage even if the culture discourages it.

That’s why President Garber’s letter resonates. It’s not partisan; it’s principled. He meets the moment and models what institutional leadership looks like when grounded in moral clarity. And if our Instagram feeds were any indication, our classmates were proud to see the university take a stand.

That kind of leadership has been conspicuously absent at HBS. Dean Datar and the vast majority of our professors (with a few notable exceptions) have yet to acknowledge the crisis despite its direct relevance to business leadership and the visible anxiety it’s created among our classmates. They have yet to comment on how recent immigration policies threaten not only the ability of international students — who make up nearly 700 students or 40% of our campus — to live, study, and work in the United States, but also their physical safety. Nothing on the surge of executive orders and legislation targeting LGBTQ+ rights that put students at risk. Nothing on the broader question of what business leadership should look like in an era of democratic erosion and political instability.

At any university, that silence would be disappointing. At a school that aims to shape the next generation of global leaders, it’s unacceptable.

Let’s be clear: these are not abstract political issues. They are business and moral ones. Immigration affects global talent pipelines. Climate change distorts our supply chains. Civil rights and the rule of law are essential to stable markets, let alone the foundations of a just and functional society. Trade wars and tariffs can reorder entire industries overnight, destroying investments in the blink of an eye. The competence of appointed officials to govern, on everything from public health to national security, has real consequences that business leaders experience everyday. And the political overreach into higher education — into whom can be hired, what can be taught, and which ideas are considered acceptable — undermines the open inquiry that enables innovation.

So, what now?

We’re not asking for partisanship. We’re asking for courage and for our institution to match its rhetoric on leadership with action. We propose a new social contract between students, faculty, and administration:

1. Dean Datar should follow President Garber’s lead. He should speak publicly about the threat that the Trump Administration poses to HBS and the broader business community, acknowledging what’s possible in accordance with Harvard’s institutional voice policy. Students’ rights, safety, and futures are on the line, as are the global talent pipelines, open markets, and regulatory stability on which business depends. If HBS wants to remain a serious voice in business leadership, it needs to lead. Silence in this moment doesn’t just undermine student trust; it also weakens the school’s relevance in shaping the future of business.

2. Faculty should model what they teach. Teaching leadership requires demonstrating it, especially when the stakes are high. In a time of democratic fragility and political volatility, silence is not neutrality, but an abdication of responsibility. Faculty should speak up publicly, inside and outside of the classroom, about the forces reshaping business and society and the responsibility of CEOs and business leaders to respond. They should create space for open, bipartisan dialogue, rather than retreating into vague cases that avoid controversy. Topics like doing business in authoritarian regimes, the risks of political instability, and the realities of immigration policy define the world we’re preparing to lead. Business students should not just study leadership; they should also witness the power of it.

3. Students must reject complicity. Those of us who are American citizens have both the right and the responsibility to speak up about the political forces that will define our professional futures. Those who are not American citizens are enduring the consequences of these policies and deserve our solidarity. We must actively promote the values we want to see reflected in the next generation of business. That includes questioning how the business community is responding to threats against civil liberties, education, and democratic norms. The networks we build here will shape companies and capital for decades, so let’s build them on a foundation of shared responsibility, not selective silence.

Yes, we recognize the irony of saying this now on the brink of graduation. We should have spoken sooner. But part of leadership is knowing when silence is no longer defensible.

We hope the next class doesn’t wait as long as we did.

Jane Wiesenberg (MBA ‘25) is a proud New Yorker dedicated to expanding economic opportunity and revitalizing our public infrastructure. She graduated from Colby College and served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Development to New York Governor Kathy Hochul, following roles with U.S. Senator Cory Booker and in public finance investment banking at Citigroup.

Dane Alivarius (MBA ‘25) is passionate about innovating for the national interest and strengthening the critical relationship between business and government. He served as a Policy Advisor at the U.S. Treasury Department, where he advised on foreign investments. Dane is a graduate of Oxford and Georgetown Universities.

Isabelle Tarsh (MBA ‘25) still believes that business can and should be a force for good, for individuals, communities, and the planet. She is from London and graduated from the University of Durham in 2019 with a degree in History. Prior to HBS, she worked at Nestlé in brand management and sustainability.