Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue at Harvard


Published October 1, 2024


Dear Members of the Harvard Community,

For the past six months, the
Open Inquiry and Constructive Dialogue Working Group has sought to understand how we communicate with one another and how we might do better. It has explored how we experience our classrooms and the broader campus environment. It has researched how we teach and learn. And it has assessed how various tools and techniques support robust debate and rigorous discourse. We write now to share the Group’s report and recommendations.
 
Drawn from Faculties from across the University, the Working Group hosted 23 listening sessions, conducted online surveys, and gathered direct input from students, faculty, staff, and alumni representing every Harvard School. More than 600 affiliates participated in the listening sessions, while thousands more lent their perspectives through surveys and correspondence. Thank you to all who took the time to share their views—we need to hear from all parts of our community if the work ahead is to be fully successful. As the report states, “excellence through the free and respectful exchange of ideas demands much of every member of the community.”


The insights gleaned from these many points of engagement are detailed in the report, which notes that some community members are reluctant to share their views or to discuss controversial issues because they fear being judged by peers, criticized on social media, or subjected to reputational or professional damage. To address and help overcome this reluctance, the Working Group highlights good work already under way across our campus to cultivate habits, norms, and practices supporting open inquiry and constructive dialogue. These efforts informed the Working Group’s own wide-ranging recommendations, including the establishment of norms, propagation of best teaching practices, creation of new teaching modules, and development of responsible social media policies.


We accept the recommendations of the Working Group and look forward to working with the deans, faculty, staff, and students to put them into practice. Our work will undoubtedly take time and will take many forms across the University. As our community rededicates itself to this vital pursuit, we encourage you to read the report and use it as a resource in efforts—large and small—to further open inquiry and constructive dialogue. More about the report is available in this
Gazette Q&A.
 
As we noted when we announced the Working Group in April, excellence in discovery and learning requires the ability to try ideas on for size, to explore them fully, to challenge accepted wisdom, to disagree productively, and to take risks. We are immensely grateful to the members of the Working Group, especially co-chairs Tomiko Brown-Nagin and Eric Beerbohm, for their tremendous contribution to this important effort. As the report notes, we are at an “inflection point in the history of our institution, our nation, and the world,” and “we must practice—even enshrine—habits, norms, and practices that facilitate the excellence for which we all strive.” This report points the way.


Sincerely,


Alan M. Garber

President


 John F. Manning

Provost


Read the Report and Recommendations Here


December 10, 2025
Written by John Craig December 10, 2025 On October 27, the Manhattan Institution’s City Journal published a major, breakthrough analysis of the performance of 100 prominent US (and one Canadian) universities and colleges, “Introducing the City Journal College Rankings,” For the first time, this new performance system includes data on measures (68 in all) like freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity tolerance, quality of instruction, investment payoff, and campus politicization that are not considered in the other major higher ed ranking systems. How did Davidson measure up in City Journal’s performance assessment? On a scale of one (bottom) to five (top) stars , Davidson is among the 63 schools that received 2 stars. Schools that, according to City Journal, have “Mostly average to below-average scores in all categories with no particularly noteworthy strengths. Significant, focused policy changes are needed at these schools.” (Full rankings available here College Rankings | Rankings ) To summarize the methodology, the City Journal team selected 100 schools that are highly touted by other ranking systems, widely known to the American public, and/or of high regional importance. The researchers gathered data on 68 variables across 21 categories covering four major aspects of on- and off-campus life. The Educational Experience categories were Faculty Ideological Pluralism, Faculty Teaching Quality, Faculty Research Quality, Faculty Speech Climate, Curricular Rigor, and Heterodox Infrastructure; the Leadership Quality categories were Commitment to Meritocracy, Support for Free Speech, and Resistance to Politicization; the Outcomes categories were Quality of Alumni Network, Value Added to Career, and Value Added to Education; and the Student Experience categories were Student Ideological Pluralism, Student Free Speech, Student Political Tolerance, Student Social Life, Student Classroom Experience, Campus ROTC, Student Community Life, and Jewish Campus Climate. No other higher ed ranking system includes as many variables. (Read more about methodology at College Rankings | Methods ) The data included publicly available information from sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings. The researchers also developed original measures for the project, such as the ideological balance of student political organizations and the partisan makeup of faculty campaign contributions. Each variable was coded so that higher values mean better performance and was weighted to reflect relative importance. For example, student ideological pluralism (as measured by self-reported student ideology and the left-right balance of student organizations) accounts for 5 percent of a school’s score while City Journal’s estimate of how many years it will take the typical student to recoup their educational investment to attend a given college accounts for 12.5 percent. A school’s overall score is the sum of points across the 21 categories, with the top possible score being 100. While the assessment system is for the most part hard-data-based, it has, like other ranking systems, subjective elements—like the weighing system. So methodological challenges will come and will doubtlessly lead to improvements the next time around. That said, the methodology strikes me as defensible and a marked improvement over that of other popular rating systems. I will conclude with some comments on the findings. Note that the Average score (out of 100) for the 100 institutions is 46 and the median score is 45.73—so overall, this is not a “high performance” group of institutions. No institution receives a 5-Star rating, and only two receive a 4-Star rating (University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin). Only 11 schools receive a 3-Star rating—Having “Mixed results across the four categories, showing strengths in some and weakness in others. These schools typically have several clear paths to improvement.” Because assessment scores are generally low and tightly clustered in the middle, the rankings by score are misleading: Davidson, at 51.16 with a rank of 25, looks to be in the top quartile (between Princeton and Georgetown), but in fact gets just a 2-Star assessment
November 11, 2025
Report from Ivy League school finds rampant grade inflation, but students complain administration is moving goal posts
October 30, 2025
Decades of big spending, new federal funding cuts and a changing view of higher education created a perfect storm; ‘Spending Your Tuition On Its Mistakes’
Show More