PEACE OF PROFITS

Porter Sargent '96, original educational counselor and publisher of an annual school and college handbook, has categorically stated that American universities--Harvard in particular--forced us in to the first World War and are now doing their best to enroll us in the current edition. His conclusion rests on a tenuous thread of logic running from pro-Allied speeches by university presidents through the control of their educational institutions by the business community to the latter's economic stake in an Allied victory. Essentially, his argument is that the United States went to war in 1917 and will go again to protect and enrich big business. In so arguing Mr. Sargent has used questionable logic to support a desirable end--non-intervention.

He speaks of Harvard as the most articulate pro-Ally university. Then he attempts to discover who controls Harvard in order to find a rational basis for the interventionist speeches of its President and some of its professors. Lo and behold, the House of Morgan becomes the major bogeyman because of its supposed control of the Corporation and Overseers since the turn of the century. Granted this conclusion, which cannot be factually substantiated, then President Conant must whip up moral enthusiasm behind intervention in order to protect foreign investments and thus maintain or increase endowments. Harvard and other universities, it is claimed, have enough influence to force the country into war since university influence extends throughout the entire educational system and because words carry much weight. To say the least this logical chain is both oversimplified and dubious in the extreme. Mr. Sargent refutes his conclusion as to who controls Harvard when he talks of his "Alma Mater, the greatest center of learning and enlightenment in the world, and institution so stable that its influence is always greater than a particular set of men who control it at one time." Here he has hit the head of the nail instead of his thumb. Then, too, it is very doubtful that universities have as much immediate, concrete influence on the nation as Mr. Sargent attributes to them.

The belief that we fought the last war for the House of Morgan with its corollary--British propaganda--is widespread. It caused the Nye munitions investigation which resulted in such heavy war-time taxes that no profits will be made in future wars. It is the backbone of the recent Student Union broadside. Historians, however, would dispute this reasoning. They would say that British propaganda had some influence, though it was small west of the Mississippi, and everywhere only activated those who were already pro-Ally. They would point to the American diplomatic blunders which forced us into war over the only weapon Germany had against the British navy--the submarine, to the unneutral attitude of Wilson, House, Lansing, and other political leaders. Economic interests would be only one of many causes.

Mr. Sargent's non-interventionist argument helps balance the pro-Allied utterances of others. Despite its superficial counter-propaganda value, though, his argumentation represents an undesirable type of support for the non-interventionist cause. Interventionists can shoot such logic full of holes and then triumphantly demand our participation in the War. With many sound arguments to back non-intervention it is both unnecessary and dangerous to adopt Mr. Sargent's views.