Reel Paternalism

During the revered era of the veteran, student groups used to proclaim their independence loudly and frequently. Yet, apparently some of those same groups now can't escape freedom fast enough.

A case in point is the joint Liberal Union-Ivy Films petition soon to grace Dean Watson's desk. The Dean will be asked to regulate all undergraduate movies--to require registration of films slated for a run at Harvard and to enforce by College authority a first-come-first-rights rule in case of scheduling conflicts. This might seem like too much paternalism even for the Deans, but, considering University Four's past actions, this may not be the case.

We would not bother to object if the Deans had not already shown too much love for meddling. Watson in the past has established great control over the film business, which includes limiting HLU and Ivy Films to a set number of pictures per month, ostensibly to protect the interests of other groups which prosper on film profits. This may seem like a good idea, to take the weaker groups under an official wing, but for that matter the HLU-Ivy Films request might seem a good idea, too.

A quote from scripture shows why they are not. According to General Education in a Free Society, "the educational value of activities, such as it is, comes from the fact that habituation and experience are necessary for the development of any skill, including intellectual skills . . . There is no doubt that decisiveness, initiative, and cooperativeness can be stimulated in the student who has to cope with problems encountered in the running of an organization . . ."

There is no law which forces Harvard to take this attitude. It has done so in the past because it recognizes that education is worthless unless it involves decision-making as well as routine work. Schedule conflicts, squeeze plays, and inter-group disharmony are just the sort of problems that students can educate themselves by solving. If, whenever these problems afflict groups, the students run to Watson for mothering, the worth of a Harvard education must perforce decline.

Fortunately, Ivy Films and the HLU have not yet submitted their petition. We can only suggest that they tackle their own problems for a change, and that they renew the zeal for independence they once possessed. Surely, it would not be impossible to set up an inter-group committee among local film purveyors which would settle all these trivial disagreements whenever they appeared. Presumably, the Crimson Key's calender service could be of help.

We also suggest that Dean Watson unburden himself of responsibility for film showings, for seeing to it that the laws of Cambridge are respected, for making sure that the groups do not strangle each other or pull each others' hair, and let the organizations do the worrying. Unaccustomed as he is to enforcing freedom on students, that is what he should do.