To the Editor of the CRIMSON:
There was, to be sure, a "germ of truth" in your leading editorial of September 25. But aside from the subtleties of its somewhat Hearstian hyperbole and misplaced emphasis, we feel that you wound up in severe contradiction. The bluntness of your concluding statement indicates a spirit of intolerance more alien to Harvard than that of which the defendant Admonition is accused. After all, gentleman, as you yourself implied, tolerance thrives in an atmosphere of criticism. Logically, the more critical an opposition becomes, the more tolerance should be extended. In reality, however, we find that exactly the opposite is true; and this fact seems to prove the isolated nature of Harvard. Sam Adams did not build a revolution out of tolerance, and the CIO did not establish a Ford local by deferring to the rationalizations of a strong-arm Service Department. Even teachers, when they have emerged from the academic dust, can be tolerant. Note the abrupt action of the conservative leadership of the American Federation of Teachers when three progressive locals had become strong enough to threaten its domination. Assuming the prevalence of the "professional disease," there is but one logical course--to cure, or at least remedy, the ailment.
We do not believe that the influence of the Faculty is "out of sheer black malice," nor are we unconscious of the fact that the war has brought some changes. But we feel, sadly enough, the anachronistic truth of Ben Franklin's accusations. Harvard is still a temple where most of the worshippers "contented themselves to sit at the foot with Madam Idleness and her maid Ignorance," and learn "little more than how to carry themselves handsomely and enter a room genteelly."
Until Harvard University begins to produce creative members of a dynamic society in greater numbers than in the past, a yearly Admonition is both justified and necessary. Marc Jaffe, Editor, The Harvard Progressive.