Attempts by Harvard University Medical School to control public perception of its brand by banning student interaction with the media backfired this week, forcing the school’s administration to rescind their free speech limitations.
The communications ban, which was adopted on Feb. 2 but not distributed until this week, required that “All interactions between students and the media should be coordinated with the Office of the Dean of Students and the Office of Public Affairs. 
This applies to situations in which students are contacted by the media as well as instances in which students may be seeking publicity about a student-related project or program.”
Several medical students said they believe the communications ban was a clear attempt to stifle their actions protesting what they believe is the inordinate influence of drug companies on the school’s curriculum.
Dean for Students, Nancy E. Oriol, did not deny that the policy was drafted in response to students’ actions protesting the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the university.
“It is hard to imagine that this new policy is not somehow related to the past advocacy efforts of students,’’ David Tian and Kirsten Austad told The Boston Globe in an e-mail message. “In general, the culture of medicine often labels dissent as ‘unprofessional,’ and this is clearly communicated to us during our medical education. [However] doctors must be free to openly criticize the status quo and advocate for the rights of their patients.’’
“Last time I checked, being a student did not diminish my rights,” Brian S. Fuchs, a third-year medical student told The Harvard Crimson. “It’s something I’d expect from a medical school in Iran, not Harvard Medical School.”
“It doesn’t surprise me that the first instance [of institutional free speech limitations] I’ve heard of comes from Harvard, and the reason is the Harvard public affairs staff has been trying for years with increasing success to take over communications with the outside world. It is very corporatized,” Cambridge civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate told The New York Times.
Silverglate, who is chairman and co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has challenged other university restrictions on free speech, but said he knew of no other such policy.
The Times reported that no other colleges in the Harvard system appear to have such a restrictive policy on interaction with the news media. Medical schools at Yale, Johns Hopkins and Stanford have no such policies.
Dean Oriol said that “the wording is problematic and it doesn’t really capture our intent…. Students are unequivocally free to talk to anyone at anytime.”
The Harvard Crimson reported, “In light of this negative attention… the school temporarily pulled the policy from the online version of the student handbook.”
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, however, continues to maintain a strict set of “Guidelines for Media, Filming, Photography and Recording” of faculty, administration, staff and students.
Mind-boggling for any institution to think it could or should implement such a policy. Students are not employees. (If anything, the school works for them as an expectation of paying tuition.) As is typical with a PR misstep, Harvard did not need outside forces to tarnish its reputation. It has done it all by itself.
[...] this page was mentioned by Dan Hutson (@dhutson), gail_nelson (@gail_nelson) and others. [...]
Harvard has managed to create and step in more than a few PR turds recently. It is a grand brand, but today there really seems to be no central authority, the schools run wild, the finances are a mess, and as far as I can tell, Drew Faust is somewhere in her cabin waiting for divine instruction. I have more than a passing knowledge of the institution, and sadly my most recent contacts with it have consisted of whiffle balls that go off in all directions, and doesn't seem characteristic of the Harvard I have known. The Med School PR mess is a perfect example of the loose confederacy of Harvard today.