Harvard Medical Revises Controversial Media Policy

After media and student criticism, Harvard Medical School has revised a new media policy that restricted student speech.

In February the University adopted a policy requiring all contact between students and the media to be coordinated by the administration, specifically the Office of the Dean of Students and the Office of Public Affairs.
 
When it appeared in the Student handbook last week, the new policy caused alarm with a number of students who feared it would greatly curtail their ability to voice criticism or dissent.  Last January, shortly before the new policy was written, the New York Times featured interviews with medical students in an article about conflicts of interest arising from corporate donations to the school from the pharmaceutical industry.  Speaking to the press, administrators did not deny that the decision was in part prompted by this controversy.
 
The students quickly contacted the New York Times and Boston Globe and caused a minor stir in the national media. Administrators dropped the policy in response, now stating that it was never intended to impact free speech but rather to protect patient confidentiality.  This week the administration began the process of revising the policy with student input. 
 
While student input in the policy addresses one of the students’ objections, it remains to be seen whether the new policy will adequately address the other problems with this policy.  Harvard drafted a policy that would have told students that their statements to the press—whether made as individuals or speaking for the campus—had to be cleared through the administration.  Such a policy throws the notion of rigorous academic discourse out the window.  A free exchange of ideas among the members of the academic community is critical to the mission of education.  A robust discussion in the marketplace of ideas is the best way for a field of study to advance and progress.  Moreover, in the case of a school that tends to set the bar for an entire field of study, there’s value in the public and other students and scholars being privy to that dialogue. 
 
Whether this particular policy was motivated by legitimate concerns or out of a desire to stop damaging comments to the media, it would have impinged on student speech.  Unfortunately, many policies that restrict student speech are adopted for purportedly administrative reasons.  From trademark regulations that prevent students from using the University name in satire, to complex room booking forms, many administrators inadvertently restrict the free expression of ideas on their campuses. 
 
We, and I’m sure the Harvard Medical School student body, will be keeping a close eye on take two of this policy.