What Yale Can Learn from Harvard on Political Debate

On Friday, February 9th, the Harvard Kennedy School invited the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Hungary, Peter Szijjártó, to discuss controversial topics ranging from the Russo-Ukraine war all the way to Sweden’s NATO ambitions. While some event organizers and many in the 500+ strong crowd fundamentally disagreed with Minister Szijjartó–even giggling at some of his remarks–they nevertheless stayed to engage with him and ask questions.

Minister Szijjártó had just traveled to Ukraine only a few days prior to his speech, is in constant contact with ministers in both Ukraine and Russia, and actively develops legislation that keeps Hungarian families safe, such as banning the transportation of weapons on Hungary’s borders. 

In his remarks, Minister Szijjártó spoke specifically about the European political climate surrounding the war. He described how “there is no space for [a] rational type of dialogue” in Europe as Hungarians are always wrongfully labeled as “friends of Putin, propagandists of the Kremlin, or spies of the Russians.” 

Additionally, Minister Szijjártó discussed a hidden hypocrisy within the Biden administration’s foreign policy on Ukraine, namely that Russia is “the number one supplier of…uranium” to the United States, which “spent more than a billion dollars last year in the Russian Federation,” yet the US aggressively critiques other countries’ similar, smaller-scale policies.  

The Russo-Ukrainian War is still a hot topic frequently discussed in Yale classes. It is the focus of courses—like Professor Marci Shore’s The War in Ukraine and the Problem of Evil and Professor David Cameron’s The War in Ukraine—assessments, readings, and discussions across Yale classrooms. 

While Yale has attempted to complement students’ discussions and academic materials with speaker events like the Jackson School’s panel on Ukraine with Professors Timothy Snyder, Arne Westad, and Serhii Plokhii in 2022 or the Macmillan Center’s lunch seminar with Professor Olena Stiazhkina this past November, conversations by those who are not facing decisions concerning the war aren’t enough. Yale strives to educate students on global issues by bringing the most informative and knowledgeable perspectives to campus, but their general hesitancy towards inviting potentially controversial speakers seems hypocritical as regards this mission.

Furthermore, Yale has a history of disinviting speakers they deem to be controversial. For instance, in 2018, Yale Law School disinvited Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, “citing his decision to appeal a judge’s ruling in favor of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal” (The Philadelphia Inquirer). 

There have also been calls by student groups to disinvite speakers invited by the Buckley Institute, like the Muslim Students Association’s 2014 attempt against Somali-born Dutch-American writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Yale Daily News). On a side note, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also the keynote speaker at the Buckley Institute’s Eighth Annual Disinvitation Dinner in Mayof 2024. 

Moreover, Yale College policy states that the Secretary of the University and the Dean of Student Affairs must be notified if a “controversial speaker” is being invited. The regulations describing such controversial speakers state that “undergraduates are responsible for paying for security” (Event Policies Checklist). Of course such a financial burden on students from a university with a 40+ billion USD endowment pushes student groups into inviting uncontroversial speakers who do not need security. 

While similar policies are outlined in peer institutions’ guides, the tone and content of the policies convey a different meaning. For instance, Harvard provides guidance on issuing invitations: the Office of the Marshal tracks all invites and supports student organizations in preparing them, provides checklists for events, and even has a platform to customize gifts for visiting dignitaries (Office of the Marshal). Yale, on the other hand, simply “reserves the right to cancel the invitation to any speaker if it deems that there is inadequate time to prepare for the event” (Event Policies Checklist).

Surely, Harvard has a history of disinviting speakers as well. They are not the ideal. Yet, based on the list of supposedly controversial speakers that they have hosted in recent years, like the event with Minister Szijjártó, they are clearly doing better than Yale. Even if their student body is not more receptive to controversial speakers, the institutional support and campus mentality towards fostering important, even if difficult, discussion seems to be better.

Students need to hear global changemakers to truly understand the multi-layered debates around policy issues. For an institution that aims to promote intellectually stimulating discussions and empower students to become leaders, the aversion to inviting controversial speakers seems hypocritical, since those who make policies will always receive strong opposition from some.

As Minister Szijjártó’s Harvard talk highlights, policy-making tension can only truly be discussed when we listen to the men and women who actually sit at the tables where decisions are made. Those who are consistently in the room where it happens.

This is the lesson that Harvard has for Yale: invite the people who are the decision makers. This extends far beyond just the Russo-Ukrainian War. Professors, authors, and survivors share invaluable insights but do not substitute for those in power who are making on-the-ground decisions and wrestling with world issues in harsh real time.