Piety at PBH

When a recent visitor to the University stated that Harvard publications printed religious information where most college news distributors reported fraternity feuds, he made a revealing comment on present Administration policy. During the past year and a half its most significant projects have been concerned with the expansion of the University's religious facilities. In spite of occasional dissent, most students have at least tacitly approved the University's aim to bring religious facilities to a par with resources in other departments.

Last week the announcement of the latest extension of religion, the proposed "reform: of Phillips Brooks House, provoked an unexpectedly sharp reaction. Cornelius D. Hastic '52, graduate secretary of PBH, had stated that "the time has come once again to be true to the total purposes of Phillips Brooks House and its endowments." Referring to stipulations in the original grants, Hastie proposed to return "piety" to PBH by the addition of three religious groups: Catholic, Jewish, and a Protestant ecumenical association.

Hastie's proposed alterations are based on an appeal to "history" which has no basis in fact. His changes will hamper the work of the present social service program at Brooks House. They will discriminate unfairly against certain religious groups, and they are not needed, for they duplicate existing programs.

Hastie assumes that "piety" has been forgotten in the past few decades at Brooks House. When he calls for a return of the religious groups which were once a part of PBH, he ignores the fact that such organizations withdrew from the house voluntarily between thirty and forty years ago. They did not take "piety" with them when they left. The remaining social service committee became, in effect, the Association, expanded in many directions, and in perfect accord with PBH endowments, encouraged religious projects from time to time.

Financial Drain

Even ignoring the faulty historical justification, Hastie finds himself involved in still more difficult problems. The three religious centers that he would like to install would constitute a drain on already limited financial resources. Although Hastie has assured the Association he would look to its needs first, the same endowment funds obviously cannot be used twice. In past years the Association has been assisted by very sizeable amounts of each year's Combined Charities collection, in addition to the endowment funds. With part of the endowment committed to the religious groups, the Association would have to rely still more heavily on the Charities Drive. But it will have to do this in the face of a drop of $6,000 in last year's total collection. The Association, meanwhile, has been expanding, and continues to need more money each year. Reduction of funds could curtail its program.

For reasons not merely financial, the new plan seems ill advised. The spirit of piety does not demand that undergraduates be tagged as "Protestants," "Jews," or "Seculars." PBH's religion should be non-denominational, not tri-denominational as Hastie would make it.

The religious groups themselves do not like Hastie's new plan. They are afraid of what might happen to harmony among themselves were they to accept his overtures.

His plan, however well-administered, would tend to create friction. By lumping all Protestant sects into a single category, he neglects all sense of numerical proportion. One single Protestant group, the Episcopalian, is probably as large as each of the other two major divisions. Yet this church would have no claim on funds except through a Protestant interdenominational group--if and when such a group is formed.

Hastie may well encounter other problems when it comes time to give out the funds. According to his plan,the various groups will receive money in proportion to their "activity." There are bound to be quarrels over the relative significance of different activities.

No Need

But no matter what Hastie could assure the groups in money and in fairness of treatment, he still would lack justification for bringing organized religion back to Brooks House. Brooks House itself has nothing to gain from such a move; and, for the most part, the religious groups will not benefit either. Almost all have offices of buildings of their own. Most have full-time clergymen working for them, and often the groups have more money themselves than PBH could give them. Although they probably could not be expected to turn down proffered money, these groups have no pressing need for it or for PBH facilities.

Organized religion did not come to Phillips Brooks House looking for either endowments of office space. Hastie sought them out and offered it to them. That most of them were not enthusiastic over his plans is ample proof that Hastie is seeking to inject religion into PBH for its own sake, not because Brooks House needs religion or because religion needs PBH.