On October 7th, in the hours after Hamas’s murderous attack of Israeli citizens, Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee wrote a letter holding the Israeli regime “entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence”. The letter emphasised that the “apartheid regime is the only one to blame” for the events of that day. It was co-signed by 33 student groups, including Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine, Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Caucus and Harvard Jews for Liberation.
The absurd claims of the letter rightly generated huge and swift backlash. Former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said he had never been more “disillusioned and alienated” with the institution. US Senator Ted Cruz, an alumnus, had a more colloquial reaction: “What the hell is wrong with Harvard?” Some students were doxxed and families were harassed. Most importantly, the prestigious American law firm Davis Polk seems likely to rescind job offers made to two of the co-signatories. “The student leaders responsible for signing on to these statements are no longer welcome in our firm,” the statement reads. A similar incident has occurred at New York University.
This will be a defining and life-changing moment for these students. Totally wrapped up in the tribalism and headiness of youthful activism, and too foolish to give second thought to their emotional instinct, they have put their names to a letter they will soon – if not already – greatly regret (hopefully for moral reasons, certainly for professional ones). Because it is abundantly clear that no matter how strongly any of the students feel about the geopolitics, October 7th was a day to keep those arguments to themselves.
But such is the peril of student politics. When we lack any of the perspective granted by age, but are nonetheless girded by the enthusiasm of youth, it can drive us to very strange conclusions. This Harvard letter is a rather extreme example – this is perhaps the most emotive and divisive global conflict any of us will ever bear witness to in our lives. But students make foolish errors of judgment when it comes to their politics all of the time. It is practically a necessary condition of being young.
Before the 2010s, student politics was a better place: somewhere to reach mistaken conclusions without fear of life-changing retribution
The arrogance of youthful conviction is not a bad thing in itself: students ought to be able to explore ideas; get things very wrong; try on different political lenses; test issues against their principles. Most importantly, they ought to be given the freedom to change their mind. Many of the ‘Marxists’ I knew at college work for elite banks now; plenty at the helm of so-called progressive gender debates have moderated their position; I do not think the same about many things I did when I was a student – it would frankly be a little strange if anyone did.
In fact, I was at university right as the maelstrom of political correctness and ‘woke’ arrived on campus. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt suggests the phenomenon starts somewhere around 2014, when a new mode of student emerged. They advocated for trigger warnings at lectures; hounded heterodox speakers off campus; for a time, many student bodies banned the clapping of hands lest it provoked discomfort in those who, erm, don’t like clapping.
It is easy to laugh at the absurdities, the excesses and the left-wing pieties of student politics. But a little bit of charity can be granted too: everyone has bad ideas. We should judge people by their ability to grow out of them. Everyone is liable to adapt their views as the world changes. The students who posted Palestinian flags on social media within hours of a Hamas terrorist attack at a music festival ought to come to regret it. I suspect many will.
But it is much harder to change now. With internet records, and students enthusiastic about declaring their views on social media, sleuths can find out who believed what and when. We do not need to be regaled with one more story about someone who has lost a job thanks to something they said a decade ago. But this is a very new phenomenon. Before the 2010s, student politics was a better place: somewhere to reach mistaken conclusions without fear of life-changing retribution. Now, it seems, young people are expected to come into the world with fully developed and sophisticated ideas; to have never got anything wrong; forced to adhere to the values held at 18 lest they are labelled a hypocrite at 38.
It is an unfair expectation. The worst people are not those who disagree with past versions of themselves, but those who refuse to adapt to the world and moderate their principles in light of evidence. Clemency should always be afforded to those who change their mind. It is a principle not just important for student activists, but for the health of our society writ large. The Harvard letter was a shocking betrayal of decency. The students behind it should apologise. If they mean it – honestly mean it – then they ought to be forgiven.