Religion and the Free Student

There appears to be a small sort of religious revival going on at Harvard. Religious speakers, with a decorous but unquestionably proselytizing air about them, have been appearing more frequently in the past two years, and they have been bolstered by "get-acquainted" meetings in the Houses. Now we hear the first word of a committee headed by Provost Buck that has been studying the problem of religion at Harvard. Though the committee has not yet issued its report, it has apparently looked with favor on a plan to grace the College with two new officers: a Chaplain, to mingle with men in their ordinary lives and be available to those who need religious guidance, and a Preacher, to run Memorial Church and teach a General Education course on religion. There are serious objections to this whole plan.

The arguments against establishing the post of University Chaplain are strong and easily explained. In the first place he would be redundant. There are plenty of religious advisers around the Square and the student who needs religious assistance cannot lack for a place to turn. Secondly there is the fact that, in setting loose a Christian (and probably a Protestant) Chaplain upon the student body, the University would in a sense be endorsing that faith. But the most important objection is that a man's personal religion is his own matter. It would be presumptuous at best for the University to ply him with offers of religious guidance, or to parade religion in front of him. An active pushing like this is contrary to the Harvard theory of education, which is based on the principle that a man must seek for himself.

The problem of the University Preacher is more subtle. It is perfectly true that religion at Harvard is at present studied almost entirely from the non-religious point of view. The anthropological, the psychological, and the philosophical points of view are all represented, but not the specifically religious. It is arguable, therefore, that the absence of a course taught from this point of view is a flaw in the curriculum, and that there should be such a course at Harvard.

But the Preacher would be running Memorial Church and hence would have to be ordained minister. And an ordained minister is almost by definition an ardent advocate of his own religion, or even his own particular sect. He is sort of vested interest. The very title "Preacher" seems to indicate that he would come before his students, not as a scholar communicating his knowledge of religious experience, but as a representative of a particular religion, at least slightly interested in persuading them to embrace his faith. To the extent that he was a missionary for his faith, the Preacher would be compromising his effectiveness as an educator.

But the trouble is that the supporters of the new religious movement do think of the preacher as a missionary of sorts. He, just as much as the Chaplain, would be part of a program to bring religion to the student, to help some to achieve faith in these cynical times, and this very association is sufficient to cast doubt on his disinterestedness. Of course the supporters of the plan do not think of him as a missionary for a particular faith, but rather as an advocate for faith itself. But he would be a singularly non-partisan Preacher who could help men to achieve a faith other than, or perhaps opposed to, his own. There are a few churchmen (Reinhold Niebuhr has been invoked many times in these discussions) who can be said to have this breadth of mind, but there are very few, and hence it is exceedingly doubtful that one could be found to come to Harvard.

The arrival of an ordained minister of the President faith to teach a course on religion would, unless he wire a most unusual man, inspire legitamate indiggnation on the part of other religious bodies represented at the college. In the interests of fairness they would demand General Education courses on their own religions acceptance of these courses would clutter up the catalogue and denial of them would affirm Harvard's official support of one particular religion. The partisan furor stirred up, furthermore, would go a long way towards undermining the original purpose of the course--to acquaint students with the spirit common to all religions.

Even if a remarkably broad-minded and scholarly Protestant minister could be found, it is doubtful whether the course would be a good idea. The same objection as that raised against the Chaplain would prevail it is contrary to the spirit of Harvard education to try to persuade the student to adopt any opinion or attitude, even so blameless an attitude as the religious one. He is, and should remain, free to work his own way to his own opinions.

What then should be done? Clearly the idea of the Chaplain must be dropped, but what about the Preacher and the General Education course on religion? We can see only one solution to this problem: separate the custodian of Memorial Church from the G.E. professor, and find for the latter post a scholar of wide knowledge, preferably a layman, who represents the religious view without representing a particular sect, or even a particular religion. A course of this kind would round out the teaching of religion at Harvard by presenting it from a hitherto neglected point of view, and could therefore be a perfectly legitimate addition to the curriculum.

But as soon as the teacher descended from scholarship to advocacy, even of faith itself, the course would degenerate from education into an imposition on the free student. This danger appears to us exceedingly likely, especially under the plan presently being considered. We ask the committee on religion to consider at what price it would rescue the Harvard man from faithlessness.