EXCERPTS FROM CONANT VALEDICTORY ADDRESS

Gentlemen of Harvard College:

There is no need for me to emphasize the unusual nature of this morning's ceremony. Not in June but now in mid winter we mark the graduation of the senior class. More significant still, we mark also the departure of many members of Harvard College whose academic course is far from finished. To be sure, there is nothing unique in what is happening here in Cambridge. Throughout the nation our college empty so that our armies may grow in strength. Throughout the nation able-bodies young men of eighteen and nineteen years of age are being called to join the armed forces already fighting on many fronts and on many seas. For more than a year now every day has witnessed an increasing impact of the war on academic life. You have watched a college devoted to the arts of peace being transformed into an establishment primarily concerned with the needs of war. With your departure, the conversion will be complete.

For us, today, the way through to the triumphant end now seems to be outlined. Yet no one believes it to be an easy road; and the question is--how long--how many years before the end? The kind of world in which you and your generation will spend your days depends in no small measure on the answer to this question. Every day the war continues prolongs, the agony of civilization; every month adds to the chaos with which the post-war world must deal; every year increases the hazards which liberty must encounter when the war is won. Therefore, to insure victory in the shortest span of time, no sacrifice can be too great.

The hazards to liberty when the war is won,--may I take a few moments to explore this subject further? For surely next in importance to achieving a speedy victory stands the later perpetuation of the ideal for which we fight. And I take it, you and I would agree that fundamentally this war is concerned with human freedom. This being the case, it is of the first importance that we consider how we shall preserve freedom after the war is won. I say we are agreed as to the basic issue of the war. For there can be doubts only in the minds of those who either fail to understand the full implications of the totalitarian philosophy or secretly admire it.

But at some later day, as we struggle through the confusion of a post-war world it will be your task as citizens of the United States to see to it that a totalitarian virus does not corrupt this nation. That will require clear thinking, indomitable patience, and an understanding of the ways of peace. The two assignments--of war and peace--are paradoxically the same and yet far different. As regards methods, miles apart. Indeed, the winning of the war could engender such conditions in our minds that we would be unable to preserve liberty when the time of peace had come. And it is this dilemma which must be considered carefully by every young American, particularly every soldier. For only by recognizing the dilemma may we hope that it will be solved.

To my mind there can be no escape from the conclusion that a free society in times of peace (notice the qualification) must tolerate even those minorities which by their principles and doctrines seem to jeoparadize the cause of freedom. This may seem absurd to some. Yet to conclude otherwise is to forsake the only ethics on which a free society may hope to thrive. (I am talking, of course, about the political rights of a minority, about free speech and free assembly, not about conspiracies or assassinations looking towards armed revolt.)

It is a paradox, if you will, that a free society must protect within these limits those who oppose the fundamental premise on which this society is founded. Yet, to my mind, this paradox is a necessity which springs from the choice between the two conceptions of human ethics as opposite as the poles. It is a consequence of a belief in the sacrosanct nature of the individual and a rejection of the view which glorifies the collective aim. To argue that the rights of the individual are a purely utilitarian invention is to deprive the underlying American ideal of its cutting edge. You can build a free nation on a Christian view of human destiny. You can destroy it by substituting another.

Let me make it clear that this issue between the rights of individuals and a collective aim is not the issue of radical or reactionary as the forces are aligned today. Modern history has shown that liberty can be crushed by an avalanche either from the right or from the left.

Furthermore, I have been discussing the development of American society, not the structure of other nations. After the war we shall have to learn how to keep the peace by cooperation with other great countries which have very different cultural patterns and different histories from our own. But we shall not promote the cause of international understanding by confusing our own internal problems with the great debt we owe to China, to Great Britain, and to Russia for their magnificent fight against our common enemies. If we are to live in a world of peace we must accept great responsibilities beyond our borders. But we must also find a solution of problems presented to us by modern technology at home. These problems we must solve in our own way. The future of this nation must spring from its past,--it must represent a continuing evolution of the American pattern.

However hard-boiled the average American may be, he is unlikely to accept the idea of liquidating his political opponents without mercy. Whether he bases his philosophy consciously on religion or not, he believes that it is wrong to coerce and torture human beings (wrong mind you not inexpedient) wrong to have a government based on informers and intimidation. He feels it in his bones that men ought to be free. He looks forward, therefore, to having more human liberty on this continent, not less. To this end he may wish to make radical changes in the political and economic structure of America. Like Thomas Jefferson, when he abolished primogeniture, a citizen of this republic may today wish to swing an axe against the root of privilege. But he will do so only that a greater number of citizens may be free with in large limits, free to carry the responsibilities as well as to enjoy the benefits of modern civilization. It is because we have come to realize the confusing complexities of modern industrial society that we expect drastic alterations. We realize that there can be little or no real chance for many individuals to make significant choices--the essence of freedom--if there is not first of all freedom from want and fear. Social security for us, however, is not an end in itself but a means towards freedom. It is thus, in the spirit of the American tradition that the problems of our day must be conceived.

I do not have to tell you that our troubles will not be over when victory comes. You do not expect the millenium once the fighting ceases. You know how long and difficult may be the post war years. In this period you will need courage, endurance, patience (above all, patience) to see it through; you will need an understanding of what it means to work in close cooperation with other men. The fortitude, loyalty and stead-fastness that come from hardship and danger serve the erstwhile soldier well even in civilian clothes.

Formal education for the present you leave aside, but you will grow in wisdom nonetheless. Now knowledge will come to you by virtue of the sacrifices that you will be asked to make. Having been ready to run all risks for freedom, you will comprehend it as those of us at home cannot. On some subsequent commencement day you will return with the understanding born of great events. On that occasion it will be said to you as of the returning Harvard soldiers of 1865:

"Today, our Reverend Mother welcomes back

Her wisest scholars, those who understood . . .

Many loved Truth, and lavished life's best oil

Amid the dust of books to find her . . .

But these, our brothers, fought for her."

Gentlemen, with anxious pride, Harvard awaits the day of your return.