Return of the Serpent

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld).

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The serpent has at last broken from forced hibernation and reared his head over Cambridge. His return must be a shock to those who believed him safely buried forever. But he is with us for a short visit at least, and to our rulers he is an unwelcome guest. The laws of diplomacy, not to say self-preservation, require his handling with kid gloves. Yet there is a dark hint of exile: would it not be well to banish the unfortunately immortal serpent once more, and break off diplomatic relations with the animal kingdom?

Day before yesterday's questionnaire once more reminded the authorities of Harvard that the undergraduate body is not sexless. Fearing lest the outside world should discover that Harvard students are neither eunuchs nor impotent, the authorities have raised their hands in horror, and according to reports, are prepared to bring them down with a bang.

The CRIMSON, informing us of the gravity of the situation and reminding us that our reputations are at stake, proceeds to laud the spirit of the questionnaire, and then as usual, to contradict itself Warning us all of the danger of publicity, the CRIMSON sensationalizes the questionnaire on its front page, so the every dirty tabloid in Boston is sure to have the story before the Friday CRIMSON has gone to press. And then in the leading editorial, we read that the resists of the questionnaire "would be of importance to any civilized society. It is of particular importance to a society, such as the American, which regards ignorance of sex problems as a national virtue and asset." Bravo! But a little later on we read. "If the statistics are released to the press, one can scarcely conjecture what the result would be. . . There must be an explicit promise that none of the statistics will be released for public consumption."

The editorial then proceeds to demand very justifiably that the results of the questionnaire be placed "in reliable and trained hands" and that assurance be given of the responsibility of those sponsoring the whole affair.

The purpose of this letter is not to defend the particular sex questionnaire, with which I have no connection. I have no idea how much scientific validity and value such an investigation may have. But I do wish to call attention to the rotten attitude of Harvard officialdom toward sex. Why do they blush the minute sex is brought out into the open? Why do they insist on pushing it underground where it becomes filth? Why is the most important of human instincts never mentioned more than superficially in any Harvard courses except abnormal psychology and others similar? As for the questionnaire, Harvard will become more of a laughing stock if the officials quash the whole affair, than if every student were proved to be a debauchee.

It is time the animal side of our natures was given a healthy recognition. Sex considered as something extra, something on the side, will always be dirty. The questionnaire will have served an important purpose if it clears the air of filth-breeding suppression, and implants in everyone's mind the need of complete sex education and the importance of a well-adjusted sex life--at college and after college.

If the serpent is forced underground again by the authorities, they might as well realize that he will return again and again, a little dirtier each time. Why not give the serpent a bath and recognize him as a pleasant and rather important member of society? John A. Strauss '36.

(Ed. Note--In reading yesterday's editorial Mr. Strauss apparently had difficulty in dissociating the notions of "public" and "intelligent" consumption. The CRIMSON felt that "public" consumption of material of this sort might needlessly and uselessly harm Harvard's name, and would do the inquiry little if any good. It still holds that view.