Harvard Teaches Conformity

"It is a spirit in opposition, rather than in accommodation, that grips me because the romance, the interest, the challenge of intellectual life is to be found in dissent against the status quo at a time when the struggle on the behalf of under-represented and disadvantaged groups seems so unfairly weighted against them." --Edward Said

Before I even arrived at Harvard for my first year, I completed one of my first intellectual requirements at the College: reading Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance," which had been mailed to all first-years during the summer. In this famous text, Emerson addresses the value of independent thought and asserts that the propensity to confront authority and orthodoxy was one of the hallmarks of a great intellect. He writes: "I am ashamed to think how easily we capitulate to badges and names, to large societies and dead institutions... I ought to go upright and vital, and speak the rude truth in all ways." Perhaps it is no surprise that Emerson was sometimes considered a heretic during his academic career at Harvard.

Undoubtedly, Harvard College is one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the world; its graduates depart possessing impeccable academic credentials and talents that have been inculcated and affirmed by rigorous standards. Yet, while a Harvard education fosters the acquisition of a tremendous amount of knowledge, the College does not necessarily encourage intellectual independence or nonconformity. In fact, the undergraduate experience often fosters traits which are diametrically opposed to the ethos of resistance to the status quo. Professors and courses which promote autonomy and resistance exist at the College, but I find them to be few and far between. Harvard usually teaches and socializes its students, often through subtle and implicit mechanisms, to prize tradition and to submit or defer to authority.

Perhaps this is the proper role for a university which prides itself on propelling its graduates onto the fast track to success and influence in America's elite institutions of government, business, law, etc. However, this aspect of the Harvard experience is especially problematic for students who are intent on promoting forms of social change or who are honestly seeking to pursue academic insights without being fettered by ideological blinders.

To gain a better insight into this dilemma, we must first seek to recognize how Harvard promotes conformity, and then to determine appropriate methods of resistance. One common method that is used to indoctrinate precocious young undergraduates with the philosophy necessary to succeed among America's elite is to place an inordinate value on tradition. The enshrinement of tradition begins with Harvard itself; students are continually exposed to the notion that Harvard's storied past, its influential alumni, and its continuing prestige are worthy of an almost sacred respect.

Undergraduates are also expected to revere an ideological canon; so many classes begin with a professor intoning that the course will expose students to the "great thinkers" of a particular field. This intellectual approach would not be quite so distressing if students were also exposed to more nontraditional ideologies or exhorted to critique the "great thinkers." For example, in many courses dealing with international relations, Harvard offers little critique of American patriotism or nationalism, and issues such as America's neo-imperialism and often brutal treatment of Third World nations are not even acknowledged. Many of these courses, with their slavish insistence on American righteousness and their presumptions of American exceptionalism, should probably be offered not in the government or history departments but instead as part of the Folklore and Mythology curriculum.

Another disturbing academic trend is the tendency to marginalize ideas or issues which undercut the dominant intellectual trends. For example, in government classes which celebrate the achievements of American democracy, problematic or contradictory issues such as race, gender and class are not considered as narratives which affect the entire course. Instead, an issue like race will be addressed during only one lecture, based on the assumption that a discourse about the tensions between enduring white supremacy and democratic ideals should not affect the entire course.

It is easier to identify the measures that are used to foster respect for authority and the status quo than to determine how to encourage resistance to such pressures. However, I believe that expecting a Harvard education to inculcate a spirit of nonconformity is futile. Resistance is better promoted on an individual level, through exposure to ideas that usually fall outside of the traditional Harvard curriculum. Intellectual independence can be developed by studying authors such as Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Edward Said or Frantz Fanon, who present a strikingly nontraditional perspective on America. Resistance can also be cultivated by reading personal narratives such as the prison letters of George Jackson or the autobiography of Malcolm X, or by listening to musicians such as the Last Poets, Gil Scott-Heron, Public Enemy, or Rage Against the Machine.

Yet, what is more crucial than finding and utilizing the ammunition of intellectual resistance is discovering the will to challenge authority. Harvard generally teaches its students that upon graduation they are to seize the rewards available to capitalist elites, not that they are responsible for identifying American dilemmas and agitating to solve them. One of the few voices of dissent at the College is Professor Cornel West, who writes that America is currently a "twilight civilization" that is in dire need of fundamental re-evaluation.

Unfortunately, it seems too easy to graduate from Harvard and insulate yourself among like-minded bourgeois Ivy-leaguers. This form of social isolation can easily foster warped perspectives, such as the beliefs that inhabitants of the inner-cities lack a work ethic, that the homeless are to be feared or scorned, or that attaining financial prosperity or career success has a positive effect on your moral character.

The ease and security of reaping the type of success that a Harvard education can offer presents a serious challenge to intellectual and ideological resistance. In his day, Emerson realized that the scorn of one's peers was a major barrier to nonconformity; this pressure is still a moderating force today. Yet, Emerson still attempted to articulate a philosophy of radical autonomy. Aspects of his vision remain meaningful, especially his declaration of hope for the future: "I hope in these days we have heard the last of conformity and consistency... Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times..."

David W. Brown '97 of New York, NY and Cabot House was Associate Editorial Chair of The Crimson in 1996.