Harvard: Pompous, Cold?

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

For several weeks I have had a vague feeling of unhappiness about the tenor of the parietal-hour discussion. It seemed to me as though somehow the discussion were missing the point. I now think I see why.

Both the Deans and their critics have argued from the same premises. Both have accepted the language of psychiatry and analysis. Both have accepted the use of impersonal words like neuroticism, maturity, and health. Both have accepted a definition of the word "sex" as a biological, egoistic, hurried act with strong sadistic overtones. The letter-writers, along with most speakers of modern English, have forgotten the humanistic, non-paychiatric, non-analytic synonyms for words like "neurotic."

My argument should be clear by now. The Deans should be answered through letters couched in terms of warmth, joy, humor, perspective, and love. Rather than discussing sex at Harvard, we should discuss why Harvard is often joyless, pompous, cold, and frantic. The real scandal occurs not when a Harvard man seduces a 'Cliffie, but when he is ashamed to say "I love you" because it is not cool, and when he is afraid to express warmth because it is naive.

Let us then abandon the analytic, psychiatric discussion of sexual adjustment and instead discuss why Harvard has become a trade school and why it is failing to produce enthusiastic, warm, creative men. 'Why are students afraid to talk to each other and to faculty members? Why are faculty members afraid to talk to students? These are the questions which should be discussed in the community. Arthur N. Fankuchen '63-4