The New Gen Ed Lottery System, Explained
Armed Individuals Sighted in Harvard Square Arraigned
Harvard Students Form Coalition Supporting Slave Photo Lawsuit's Demands
Police Apprehend Armed Man and Woman in Central Square
107 Faculty Called for Review of Tenure Procedures in Letter to Dean Gay
To the Editors of The Crimson
Maybe it's because I'm sitting at my computer with 48 hours until my thesis is due, but I have more doubts about finding "the Truth" than Peninsula's council does.
Peninsula head honchos Sean P. McLaughlin '91 and Matthew J. McDonald '92 believe that "a university is actually supposed to stand...for the pursuit of truth." Whose truth? Probably theirs, but don't expect them to admit to mistakes in their search for it anytime soon. Nor do I expect them to go back and read their own publication half as closely as they read the Crimson articles about themselves.
Did any Peninsula editor read the article on page 13 and realize that Massachusetts doesn't have centralized economic planning? Is this some kind of hidden IQ test? Do McLaughlin and McDonald really think that the piece by Bridget L. Kerrigan '92 is on par with George Orwell? Do they really think that the anonymously published Gen Ed 105 paper is "cleverly written, funny and sardonic?" ("The semicolon is the common thread that casts a shadow over their efforts to pave the way for crossing a future bridge over non-racist waters." Huh?)
Peninsula says, "We exist to tell the truth." More power to you, and if you figure it out before my thesis is due, give me a call. But don't kid yourselves; Harvard is a place where too many people get too high on themselves, and Peninsula seems like another periodical to help with this process.
The Harvard condition isn't the pursuit of truth; it's being sure you've found the truth and starting yet another student publication to tell everyone about it. In this case, McLaughlin and McDonald couldn't even wait until the next issue of Peninsula to share their views; they had to write to The Crimson.
Please, guys, get a grip on your own fallibility, and then write something interesting. But give up on "the Truth." Why just one truth? Why not settle for one of many? If 2000 years of philosophers haven't done it yet, what makes you think you can? Robert P. Mahnke '90
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.