A Year of Crimson Politicking

A Year of Crimson Politicking

June 12, 1956



The Crimson found itself somewhat involved this year in the usual collegiate argle-bargle: urging longer hours for female guests (in accord with the ideal of “gracious living”), advocating an additional mid-year vacation and drinking for 18-year olds, battling the Harvard Athletic Association for alcohol in the stands, tickets, and general principles. Yet in the midst of the frivolity The Crime somehow found time for serious consideration of a few major issues.

COLLEGE EXPANSION

Expansion loomed as the major problem, and an essentially insoluble one. While The Crimson’s efforts to clear up the problem were not entirely successful, a few general conclusions were reached. Expansion, which seems to be approaching inexorably, must not undermine the most vital and distinctive features of Harvard education: the tutorial system, adequate library facilities, and, most importantly, adequate housing space to provide for concentrated private study. To preserve these valued institutions while recognizing the inevitability of enlargements, the University must do some really long-range planning. Meanwhile, expansion aside, an eighth house is absolutely necessary.

Of only slightly less importance is the need for a new hygiene building and a theatre. The need for a theatre became especially apparent in a year in which there were often four student productions a week. Although some fear that a new theatre would result in “professionalism” in college drama, it was generally agreed that Harvard ought nevertheless to have one.

In spite of the pressing need for an eighth house, a hygiene building, a theatre, and other improvements amounting to $40 million, there has been a general tendency to feel that all was pretty much all right at Harvard, while all was not quite right with the world. Several sighs of relief were breathed throughout the year as people became increasingly aware of the passing of the McCarthy menace. We felt, however, that precautions must be taken for the future: Eisenhower’s provision for an impartial board to handle security hearings was considered an improvement, but youthful and quite justifiable idealism still yearns for direct confrontation of witness by the accused civil servant.

FOREIGN POLICY

The most disturbing national problem, however, has seemed to be the failure to develop a foreign policy to match Russia’s “new look.” Toward this, The Crimson urged an increase rather than a withdrawal of trust in the UN, as well as the extension of multilateral long-term aid, and an increased interest in Asia, Africa, and Latin America:

“It is a sad commentary on American politics...that appeals for long-term aid must be based on Soviet actions. The need for U.S. aid would be just as compelling without any threat from the Soviet Union...”

Although The Crimson realized that the Geneva Conference did not signal a change Soviet aims, it was generally felt that personal pledges not to begin a third—and last—world war were important gains and that a continually creative approach in diplomacy indicated by the atoms-for-peace and “open skies” disarmament plan, was after all the best one. Thus, it urged that a realistic view of Soviet aims need not prevent the development of East-West contacts: Trade with Russia in non-strategic materials and the exchange of professors and students between the two countries, as well as the avoidance of automatic skepticism, were stressed. “The type of label-thinking which has characterized this country’s official view towards the Soviet Union is becoming too costly to maintain. There is a certain stage at which open hostility and cynicism begins to pay diminishing returns... Perhaps the current American reaction of automatic skepticism towards everything that Russia does or says or promises is a natural after-effect of the Great Awakening, the days when the U.S. first recognized the meaning of Stalin’s smiles. From an unjustified good faith in Russia’s intentions, America leaped into fear and a deep contempt for the new enemy, instead of assuming a proper attitude of caution and watchful reserve...In reaction to Soviet offers to confer, the U.S. answers with despairing pessimism instead of cautious optimism. When Russia announced her arms cut, Secretary Dulles, a man of few and ill-chosen words, responded that “the obvious explanation” is as a propaganda tactic and a shift of manpower to industry and agriculture.... This kind of narrow pre-judgement of Russia with which the U.S. faces the world can do this country little good. It is perhaps more dangerous than naivete, because it characterizes America as stubborn, dogmatic, and incredulous...”

IKE, DULLES, NIXON

If the point of view expressed above, with its emphasis on fluidity, indicates the reason for The Crimson’s strictures on a most rigid J.F. Dulles, a certain lack of backbone was its main criticism of vice-president Dick Nixon, the Achilles heel of the Republican Party.

“Obviously, he now supports the Eisenhower legislative program, but it is virtually impossible to point to a single substantive policy in the past three years that has been his own. The combined lack of creative leadership and of consistent political principle make Nixon’s opportunism dangerous to Eisenhower Republicanism and to the nation.... Eisenhower’s statesmanship has been the kind that can unify a nation, Nixon’s antics are intensely partisan. Eisenhower’s policy has been generally liberal; Nixon’s real policy is totally elusive. As a quick-change artist of the worst sort, Nixon’s entire political career makes current support for Eisenhower’s Republicanism highly questionable....”

In the general political analysis presented by the specter of Dulles’ stolidity and Nixon’s serpentine behavior, Eisenhower, despite his illness, appears a most creative leader. This appears in his proposals for the segregation problem—moderate but forceful action and the establishment of biracial commissions. Eisenhower’s stands, both foreign and domestic (with the exception of the farm bill), have been forthright and sensible. In light of his own worth and the incompetence of his immediate subordinates, the President’s recurring illness is most distressing to a comparatively leaderless nation.