Freedom and the Undergraduate

The Faculty Committee on Student Activities has passed and enacted its rules on undergraduate organizations. It has decided that the University should take on a certain amount of responsibility for the actions of its student groups: that it must worry about their financial solvency, that it must further worry about Harvard's "good name," and that it must scrutinize the contents and policy of new publications.

This action by the Committee effectively climaxes the post-war trend toward limitation of student freedom. In the thirties, a group could have Radcliffe girls as members; now, it cannot. In the thirties, a group could generally publish anything it wanted when it wanted without submitting it to the Administration; now it cannot. Under the new rules, organizations must also keep a complete membership list always on file at the Dean's Office, though some groups have protested that, with the current Red Scare hysteria, such a system might jeopardize the careers of individual members. The Student Council asked that all these regulations, plus another that forbids appearances on commercial radio and T.V. programs, be junked. The Faculty Committee chose to disregard all of the Council objections, even in those cases where it had power to make the changes.

Why? The Committee felt that it should be certain of a new group's financial solvency since bankruptcies might reflect on the University's name, and weakly-backed organizations might be capitalizing on their Harvard affiliation to get credit. But, if it makes itself responsible for determining an organization's solvency and stability, the University will hardly be able, as it has in the past, to tell creditors that it has no responsibility when a group fails financially.

Nor can the College disclaim all responsibility for what a publication says or advocates if the administration intends to take official notice of contents and policy. And the new rules do not say what will happen if the Committee disapproves of what a group wants to print. If the policies of a publication will not affect its chances of being chartered, why does the Committee want future contents described?

The University's fears for its good name are ill-founded. Just two years ago, when the John Reed Club sponsored Gerhart Eisler's appearance here, Dean Bender said: "Our policy for student organizations is simple. Any recognized group can hold a meeting in a Harvard building . . . and listen to any speaker they can persuade to come. The fact that a man speaks at Harvard does not mean that Harvard in any way endorses his views or even that the organization involved does. If the Dean's Office were to attempt to decide who would be allowed to speak to a Harvard organization, whose views were safe and whose were not, the views of those permitted to speak would then carry Harvard's official endorsement . . ."

The Faculty Committee's worries about organization's financial condition, and about their policies, represent a philosophy far different from that of the past. It is a philosophy of education that does not jibe with another part of Dean Bender's statement: "Harvard College is dedicated to the task of producing mature and independent educated men." Maturity and independence will not be fostered by paternalistic faculty interference in student activities.

When the Committee passed its new rules, it went against a great deal of what was good in the University's tradition--a tradition that has produced truly educated men. Education is not possible where freedom does not exist. When the Faculty Committee realizes this, it will withdraw its new rules and accept the Council's recommendations. It will let the College seek experience and knowledge the only way they can be sought: without censorship, without pressure, and without interference. That has been and should be the first lesson of a Harvard education.

Summer Service

During the past year, the much-revered "summer abroad" has taken on unwelcome and eminous connotations. With draft boards becoming more and more insistent, the prospects of a grand tour of Europe or study at the Sorbonne are dimming, while the trans-Pacific trade is booming.

Therefore it is good to hear that the Salzburg Seminar is going to try and keep up its full educational program this summer, including the despatch of American students to help with the important job of explaining America to the Europeans. This work is probably more important now than it has over been before in the four years of the Seminar's operation; judging by reports coming out of Europe, U.S. actions are badly in need of clarification there.

This is something the Defense Department and local draft boards might well take into account when they consider the cases of draft-targets who want a temporary exist from the U.S. for educational purposes. The North Atlantic Alliance is going to need more than armies to keep it strong, and projects like the Salzburg Seminar can have a powerful adhesive effect.