Footnote To Scandal

Newspapers carrying stories about the Harvard sex scandal are now lining garbage cans throughout the country, and soon the affair will slip quietly from the public consciousness. But the discussion engendered in the CRIMSON and elsewhere has revealed an important deficiency in University policy on the sexual problems and social development of the average Harvard student.

Officials charged with maintaining standards of conduct within the University, and amicable relations with the outside world, unavoidably deal in extremes. The undergraduates they see are disciplinary problems whose activities can "move us closer and closer to outright scandal." As Dean Monro, the College's chief disciplinary officer, wrote to the CRIMSON: "We are worried that the serious misbehavior of a few, and the general laxness in administration may bring the whole system into disrepute."

Psychiatrists attached to the University Health Services, on the other hand, are not responsible for the reputation of "the whole system," nor concerned primarily with the students whose "serious misbehavior" could result in scandal. The students they meet in this regard are those who suffer severe psychological reactions to sexual relationships.

In both instances, University officials are dealing with a very small percentage of the student body: those who might precipitate scandal by their actions, or those who require psychiatric help as a result of traumatic sexual experiences.

The Forgotten Man

The University nowwhere takes into account the average student who is neither promiscuous nor too immature for sex, and who seeks to construct for himself a healthy and meaningful sexual life. That is very difficult at Harvard. I think there is a great deal of truth in Paul S. Cowan's statement that University regulations tend to "brutalize" sex. But aside from the physical restraints of the rules, the University imposes more subtle, and perhaps more serious limitations on sexual development. In its public stance the University appears to ally itself with, and thus reinforce the hypocritical, out-moded, and anxiety-producing morality of the "society."

There are a number of steps the University can take to correct the vital omissions in its considerations. It should extend parietal hours to allow students more lesiurely privacy. And the University could be far more independent of pressures applied by local women's colleges and alumni for both shorter parietal hours and a forceful University position against pre-marital sex. But it is difficult to be very optimistic about the improvement of University policy in these areas.

There are, however, two actions the University can take which could greatly enchance the ability of the average undergraduate to achieve a comfortable and happy sexual life. The first would be to institute a series of small, informal, purely voluntary meetings in the entries of the freshman dormitories. Conducted by a doctor from the Health Services, these meetings would give freshmen a chance to ask questions about sexual problems before the pressures and opportunities of being "college men" force them into hurried, ignorant, and often harmful experiences. Given the abysmal sex education offered by most secondary schools, and the inability of most parents to provide adequate information, the University could perform a valuable service with such meetings. To be successful they would require both a compassionate doctor and a mature group of students. Neither ingredient is by any means assured, but the idea is worth an experiment.

"Community of Fear"

The second proposal also aims at dispelling the "community of fear" that surrounds most sexual experiences, youthful or otherwise. The Health Services should make psychiatrists much more available for informal consultation with students who do not need therapy, but would like to discuss problems with a doctor. A student wishing to see a psychiatrist now is first interviewed by an intermediary, and at best must wait two weeks for an appointment if granted one. For most of the students to whom I refer it is hardly worth the trouble.

Dean Monro has stated that he is concerned in this area with only about 10 per cent of the students. And it is doubtful that the Health Services treat many more for psychological disturbances resulting from sexual experiences. This leaves an overwhelming majority who must seek a meaningful sex life without guidance, often in ignorance and fear. Very few find it. The University is not being asked to hand down moral tenets to serve as guidelines for these people, or in any other way to control their sexual lives. It is being asked for information and understanding, and courage in the face of an often stupid and hypocritical society.