The Year in Review

Before we touched it, we charted it. Before we charted it, we named it. Before we named it, we looked up to it. And we always will. Humans have gazed above and sought to learn more about the massive abyss that looms over us—space—and the gas and particles that sprinkle the sky with stars. Although we know that risks abound with any exploration of this magnitude, tragedies as a result of space journey become no less poignant when they occur.

The heartbreaking loss of Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas this Saturday was a graphic illustration of what happens when our dreams dissolve into frightening nightmares. But we must not let this unfortunate disaster make us afraid of dreaming ever again....

But even with the fortitude to continue on in spite of tragedy, America pauses in the journey to mourn the heroes we have lost. And we do not lament alone, for this was an international tragedy. The hauntingly horrid vision of the Columbia’s archangelic descent was seen around the world....

The pain is also felt deeply here at Harvard, for a certain kinship is shared amongst those—be they students at desks or astronauts in space—who devote their lives to the brave pursuit of knowledge....

Let us hope that the same need we feel to grieve together as one remains with us as we move forward, unified and determined to touch even more stars. While we have yet to name each and every star in the spaces above, we do know at least seven....

—Feb. 5, 2003

Unilateral War Is Wrong

Over the weekend, the Bush administration signaled its intention to proceed with military action in Iraq in the very near future....

Given America’s position in the global war on terror, its interest in promoting stability in the Middle East and its stated aim of helping the Iraqi people, war at this time seems contrary to America’s goals. We oppose unilateral military action in Iraq.

Much of the rhetoric advanced by war’s proponents rests on the premise that our efforts at “liberation” will lead to a more democratic Iraq; but this is overly optimistic. Installing the mechanisms for democratic government in Iraq—whose infrastructure will have been decimated by war—requires an enormous commitment. But after its failure in Afghanistan, we doubt the Bush administration’s will to follow through....

Going to war in Iraq also puts at risk the success of our broader effort to combat al Qaeda worldwide. Beyond the shift of resources and attention from our anti-terrorism campaign to our anti-Iraq campaign, initiating an unpopular military conflict in Iraq may alienate crucial allies necessary to the capture of terrorists....

Finally, acting in the face of U.N. disapproval undercuts the foundational purpose of the organization itself, as outlined in its charter: “to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest....”

Had broader international support been assembled, military action in Iraq may have been more palatable. The goal of disarming a dangerous tyrant is a worthy one, and bringing relief to a nation crippled by totalitarianism is a noble objective. But given the lonesome international situation in which Bush now stands, we cannot support the President’s plan for war.

—March 19, 2003

Fight the Air Force

Harvard Law School’s difficult decision to allow military recruiters access to its Office of Career Services—in spite of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which discriminates against homosexuals—was a necessary but unfortunate resolution to a situation that could have severely diminished the University’s ability to carry out its mission. The Air Force’s heavy-handed threat to recommend that Harvard lose $328 million in federal funds—16 percent of the University’s yearly operating budget—left the law school between a rock and a hard place....

But while Dean of Harvard Law School Robert C. Clark’s candor in describing the difficulty he had making this choice is refreshing, the University should have challenged the Air Force’s interpretation of the federal statute in question....

Even temporarily allowing military recruiters to visit while the litigation was underway in order to keep the funding would have been preferable to capitulating without a fight. Though a legal challenge may not have ultimately succeeded, by declining to appeal the Air Force’s decision, the law school missed an opportunity to defend its values in the courtroom.

—Sept. 9, 2002

Walk Out on Apathy

Yesterday’s massive student anti-war walk-out was a necessary and productive display of dissent against a highly objectionable war. For Harvard students to leave classes and disrupt standard daily life was a necessary acknowledgement of the U.S. first strike against Iraq; the protest served as important impetus and vehicle for dialogue about the war....

Though President Bush’s initial decision to go to war is already being executed, much more remains to be decided concerning the duration and scale of the attack. Large and visible protests, such as the walkout yesterday, can and should influence such decisions. Hopefully, such popular outcries will be heeded in the minds of future presidents and policymakers, and serve to temper the dangerous precedent set by the current war....

The simplicity necessary for slogans and chants can sometimes damper the nuance of arguments, but the protest was a productive way to initiate deeper conversation. We hope people at Harvard, and around the world, will continue to pay attention to the war, consider and refine their opinions, and speak out about what they believe.

—March 21, 2003

An 82-Year Old Mistake

In late May of 1920, a secret court was created by Harvard’s president to investigate and discipline homosexual students and those who associated with them.

The group of five Harvard administrators, created to investigate the suicide of Cyril B. Wilcox, Class of 1922, was called “The Court.” The ad hoc tribunal spent the next two weeks investigating students from the College and some graduate schools—essentially prosecuting them for homosexuality....

By early June, the court expelled seven College students and told them not only to leave campus, but Cambridge as well. Three other University-affiliated men were deemed “guilty” by the court. Two were expelled from their graduate school programs, and all were blacklisted by the University’s employment office....

Such blatant homophobia and discrimination by Harvard, even in 1920, is deplorable. The existence of such a court and the prosecution of students on the basis of sexual orientation is appalling....

The University still refuses to release the names of the students.... But this position ignores the crucial issue: that the students in 1920 had done no wrong and that they were victims of a witch-hunt. By not revealing the students’ names, the University implies that they were accused of some legitimate transgression; nothing could be further from the truth.

The University can never compensate these students for their cruel persecution. Granting the students honorary diplomas is the best way Harvard can make amends today for one of the darkest moments in its history.

—Dec. 9, 2002

Our House, Our Bells

The Russians are mad at Harvard again. But this time, instead of faculty bungling their economy, it’s an alum pilfering their bells. In 1930, Charles Crane bought 18 bells from the St. Danilov Monastery to save them from the Soviet authorities, who wanted to melt them down, and donated them to Harvard. But now the rebuilt monastery wants them back by March 2003.

One word to our Russian friends: Nyet....

—Dec. 13, 2003

Molière’s Dining Halls

In 1672 the French playwright Molière wrote that “it is good food and not fine words that keeps me alive.” Over three centuries and several thousand miles away, the Harvard students who are bombarded daily with a plethora of fine words—including, from time to time, Molière’s own—are still waiting for administrators to digest his message.

Last week’s announcement that Harvard University Dining Services (HUDS) has postponed the much needed renovations to Quincy, Dunster and Mather dining halls ensures that many undergraduates will continue to eat—or not, as the case might be—in facilities that lag far behind the rest of Harvard.

The least that HUDS can do until the renovations are finally completed is to end the unfair interhouse restrictions and allow all students to eat where they will most enjoy their meals. After all, without good food, Harvard students, like Molière, know that eventually even the finest of words becomes stale.

—Jan. 13, 2003

Contest Unpatriotic Act

The USA PATRIOT Act is a beastly 131-page creation that was passed in a flurry of flag-waving in 2001. It has several terrible provisions: it allows “preventive detentions” and gives the federal government greater authority over the records of foreign students and vastly expands wiretap authority. One misguided requirement even mandates discrimination; it prevents university labs from allowing citizens of seven “terrorist-supporting states” to perform research on certain classified substances.

This law directly conflicts with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) anti-discrimination policy, which prevents FAS from restricting research based on nationality. Under the regulations, it doesn’t matter if the aliens are political refugees or long-time expatriates from their home countries....

FAS should spearhead efforts to overturn this jingoistic law in court....

Able researchers, whatever their nationality, should be allowed to carry out their work without the hindrance of ill-conceived government harassment. Harvard’s Faculty must stand up for that right.

—Jan. 15, 2003

Repeal the Keg Ban

While the Crimson finished its second straight year with a victory over the Elis, the Harvard tailgates still had many of the same drinking problems as two years ago. In fact, the Harvard University Police Department said that, based on preliminary information, there had been more ambulance transports for intoxication this year than during the 2000 game. The newly-implemented keg ban did not accomplish its goal: to decrease problems associated with drinking.

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 instituted the keg ban after four students got severe alcohol poisoning at The Game two years ago. Yet, preliminary numbers reveal that this year, even more students got sick—up to 30 students overall were taken by ambulance to local medical facilities and at least two were intubated for extreme intoxication, according to a source close to Professional Ambulance....

In effect, the keg ban prompted many students to “pre-game” before the tailgate with alcoholic drinks....

As long as the ban exists, it will remain an ineffective measure that will hurt students, the College and the environment much more than it could ever help. A keg prohibition will never address the serious problem of binge drinking.

—Dec. 3, 2002