Is geography a vulnerable discipline? Reflections on the elimination of geography at Harvard University

The elimination of geography at Harvard University is a big event in the history of geography, which contributed to a key question whether geography is a vulnerable discipline. The elimination of geography at Harvard has a significant influence in the history of geographic thought. This article takes the elimination of geography at Harvard as a typical case and attempts to reveal the truth and the influences of the event based on the analysis of the stories in some references. The present essay is not just a case study of an important event in the history of American geography, but an opportunity for reflection and an invitation to learn from history and to apply these lessons to the present. The article argues that there were six reasons for the elimination of geography at Harvard, including the prevailing atmosphere of science, the arrogance of the university management, infighting between natural sciences and humanistic studies, the political factor of excluding communist influences, discrimination against homosexuals, university financial constraints, and the background of the particular period. The vulnerability of geography is actually a matter of identity, and is how to position the subject. It depends on how geography deals with its own relationship with other disciplines, society, the government, and management, which involves the scientific, social, and political nature of geography. As an independent interdisciplinary field with a long history, geography is closely related to other sciences, society, and politics. This is both a vulnerability and an advantage. The identity of other disciplines and societal issues are important to geography. Geography should adapt and change.