Peter Schweizer, the President of the Government Accountability Institute and a senior contributor to Breitbart, highlighted a significant contrast in Harvard University’s response to recent events. Following President-elect Donald Trump’s landslide victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, Harvard canceled classes, marking a noteworthy reaction from the university. In a post shared on Thursday, Schweizer noted that this cancellation occurred while classes were not canceled after the harrowing October 7 Hamas massacre. He questioned what this decision reflects about the institution’s priorities, suggesting a disparity in the emotional and academic handling of political outcomes versus global tragedies.
According to reports from the Harvard Crimson, several courses at Harvard were either canceled, made optional, or had deadlines extended in the wake of the election results. Professors were especially responsive to the emotional state of their students. Physics professor Jennifer Hoffman reached out to her class stating that her office would serve as a safe space for students to process the implications of Trump’s election. She also mentioned her unconventional form of coping through baking lemon bars and sharing them with students, thus attempting to foster a supportive environment amidst uncertainty.
In addition to Hoffman’s outreach, economics lecturer Maxim Boycko communicated with his students, confirming that classes would continue but that quizzes would not be for credit due to the disappointment of the election outcome. He encouraged students to take time off if needed and expressed an understanding of the emotional toll the election had taken on the student body. This acknowledgment from academic staff highlights a broader trend within educational environments, where mental well-being is increasingly prioritized alongside academic rigor.
Students at Harvard voiced their emotional responses to Trump’s victory, revealing a culture of anxiety and distress. Sophia Mammucari, a Harvard student, candidly shared her experience, stating that she cried for an hour after hearing the news. Another student, Samantha Holtz, expressed her shock and disappointment, particularly feeling the weight of her surrounding pro-Harris peers. Holtz’s experience underscores the surprise that many felt, given the prevailing belief among her classmates that Harris would secure the presidency. These personal accounts shed light on the deep emotional impact the election results had on students at an elite institution like Harvard.
The response of the Harvard community to the shifts in political power reflects broader sentiments among college students, particularly those with progressive views. The striking contrast in the university’s reaction to the election results compared to global events, such as the Hamas massacre, ignites discussions about the role of academic institutions in addressing political realities. By prioritizing emotional support in the face of political disappointment, Harvard’s faculty exhibits a growing recognition of the mental health challenges faced by students in today’s social climate.
In summary, the cancellation of classes at Harvard following Trump’s election victory has sparked a robust discussion about institutional priorities and the emotional landscape of college students. The outpouring of personal feelings among students and faculty suggests a need for greater support systems in academic settings, especially during politically charged times. Schweizer’s commentary serves as a catalyst for examining how educational institutions respond to significant events, raising questions about the implications of prioritizing student well-being in a rapidly changing political environment. Through this lens, the responsibility of universities to foster resilience and emotional health in their communities becomes increasingly vital.