What Purpose?

After a year and one half wrangling and three more of construction, the University finally unveiled last month a marble memorial plaque, inscribed with the names of the 697 students, faculty members, and alumni won died in World War II. The controversy that swirled around the idea of a memorial resolved into one question: should it be a large plaque, or should it be something practical? Many people had many suggestions, on behalf of which they all campaigned vigorously; Senator Leverett Saltonstall's committee, set up to decide the issue, decided on the plaque anyway.

We opposed the decision at the time, and we continue to believe that the $75,000 spent on the plaque, plus whatever other funds the University could have raised for a memorial, would have been better spent for some constructive, practical purpose. If there is any justification for the present memorial at all, it is that those whose names it bears died in the cause of ideals without which the University could not exist.

But if that was the University's purpose, why did the Corporation approve the inclusion of the name of Adolf Sannwald, a chaplain killed in the service of the German Army? Whatever were Sannwald's motives for fighting in the Nazi cause, it is obvious that he was not defending in any way the principles of freedom that have so nourished Harvard. As long ago as 1934, President Conant rebuked a high Nazi official, Ernst F.S. Hanfstaengl '09, by refusing his offer of a gift because it was "so closely associated with the leadership of a political party which has inflicted damage on the universities of Germany through measures which have struck at principles we believe to be fundamental to universities throughout the world (Italics added)."

Because the Corporation unanimously approved the inclusion of the German chaplain's name, it seems that the University did not have in mind honoring those on the plaque because they died in the cause of its ideals.

Perhaps, instead, the University wished to honor them because they were victims of a worthless and terrible scourge called war. Even if this purpose justified a memorial, a gift of money to some organization or organizations specifically set up to combat this scourge would have been more appropriate.

But why limit the plaque to graduates, students, and faculty members who were victims of war.? There is no logical reason why the University should not have included those who died from cancer, from traffic accidents, or from falling downstairs, as such deaths are as equally tragic and as equally unnecessary as those occurring in war.

The University's answer may be that the 697 men who were honored by the plaque are special--since they died for their country--and that patriotism in itself is commendable, no matter for what philosophy it is used. Not only is this a dubious rationale, but it brings the question of motives into the issue. There can be no answer to this question, for who can tell whether a soldier fought and died because he was patriotic, or because he was drafted? Chaplain Sannwald may have been motivated by religious principles which demanded that he minister to all those in need, rather than by love of country. It is sentimentality to construct a memorial plaque on the mere assumption that all those whose names are listed died out of patriotism.

The plaque, as it stands now, is not a fitting memorial for those it purports to honor, nor will it mean anything to the succeding generations of students who will see it whenever they enter Memorial Chapel. Not only would a practical memorial be more meaningful, but it would have been a more dynamic tribute to the students, faculty members, and alumni who died in World War II than the one which Senator Saltonstall's committee chose.