Dogmatic Shortcomings

If you’re a student at HLS, you’ve probably become aware in recent weeks of a new elephant entering the room. Its name is “Socratic Shortcomings,” and it’s a Tumblr board dedicated to “shared stories about identity and diversity at HLS.” Moderated by new student group Harvard Students for Inclusion, the board promises a safe space for “students of all identities and backgrounds, named or anonymously.”

I first learned about the board through a friend, who was upset because she had taken the time to compose a thoughtful submission, only to have it blocked by the moderators. Later, I had a sincere and considered submission of my own blocked, and I have since heard of similar experiences from multiple other friends. As I can report firsthand, if your submission is rejected, you won’t learn why. Your contribution will vanish without a trace, and you’ll learn of its rejection only by seeing the stream of “approved” voices continue to populate the board in place of yours.

The board’s practice of selective publication might ring differently if the board were openly presenting itself as soliciting and publishing a particular kind of voice, rather than falsely purporting to be a safe space for expression of a full range of HLS voices. The selective publication might also ring differently if the board were selecting for writing quality or insight – or even maintained any claim of doing so. But neither does it make any such claim. Rather, it is baldly selecting on the basis of submissions’ content and disposition, preferentially giving voice to some perspectives while silencing others.

I applaud the group for taking initiative on a conversation that is sorely needed at HLS, but as a community member I am deeply disappointed by what they’ve produced. This is a thoroughly flawed and irresponsible way of conducting such a vital conversation, and the board does a disservice to the HLS community on at least three fronts.

First and most obviously, it’s immediately alienating to participants whose voices are judged not worthy of a place at the table. There is of course a legitimate place for moderation in the case of spam, or of extreme, deliberately incendiary hate language. But short of that, every voice in our community has value, and deserves to be heard on a board that purports to represent “students of all identities and backgrounds.” Any other policy points to the inescapable and intolerable conclusion that some student voices have more value than others.

Second and more insidiously, it is an affront to the autonomy and worth of those voices that it does choose to publish, as it reduces them to mere mouthpieces for someone else’s agenda. The student’s experience is valuable precisely because it is theirs – but this selective publication tells them instead that their voice’s value is not inherent but conditional, to be conferred via moderator approval. This process disempowers the contributor, strips him of his individual agency, and alienates him from ownership of his experience and his language.

Finally, quite apart from the indignity done to individual contributors, the board undermines and makes a mockery of its own stated mission. It is myopic to believe that an artificially limited and filtered conversation will serve progress better than a whole and unadulterated one. Needless to say, it also plants a special irony in the name “Harvard Students for Inclusion.” Selective publication of favored submissions has the effect of impoverishing the board’s conversation, rendering it an empty shell of the safe, open, and forward-looking space it purports to provide.

We can do better. We’ve shown that we can. I would point to Shatter the Ceiling and the successful push for gender-neutral bathrooms as just two recent examples of courageous and inspiring on-campus movements to highlight entrenched, institutionalized inequality at HLS, and to demand change. Shortcomings, on the other hand, is irresponsible in its execution and toxic in its effects, and does a profound disservice to the HLS community.

In its current form, Shortcomings misappropriates an urgent campus dialogue to advance a particular agenda. It places itself at the head of what should be a round table, not only above participants but antagonistic to them, arbiter of who will be heard and who silenced. It promotes the language of exclusion under the guise of Inclusion, and is an alienating presence on campus rather than an empowering and engaging one.

To Harvard Students for Inclusion: it’s not too late to fix this. You’ve taken it upon yourselves to begin this vital conversation, now lead it with inclusivity, courage, and open hearts. This conversation belongs to all of us – please give us a seat at the table.