Censorship?

To The Editors of The Crimson:

This great University has inscribed its goal above its gates: veritas. The only proven means to this end lies in the tradition of academic freedom. In a letter appearing in The Crimson; March 7, Nineteen Eighty-four, Mr. Mark Lagon of the Harvard Republican club argues that the tradition has broken down. He portray's a "left wing monopoly of political thought and discussion" that frustrates "true political discussion and interplay of ideas." Such monopoly makes a mochery of academic freedom, forcing the student to "regurgitate know-jerk radicalism to succeed in exams." To remedy such abuses, Mr. Lagon recommends that professors adopt a "balanced" approach in their teaching. Our response is two-fold; we find to evidence of a left wing monopoly at Harvard, nor can we find in the call for "balance" anything more than a disguised attempt at censorship.

The evidence that Mr. Lagon adduces to demonstrate left wing hegemony at Harvard is pathetic. Although leftists are alleged to so outnumber moderates and conservatives as to cow them into silence, Mr. Lagon can find but two names to cise. Professor Womack has spoken for himself: Professor Hoffmann, currently out of the country, cannot reply, so we feel obliged in come to his defense. He is charged both with being an "unremitting pacifist" and with leading the Government Department. The first accusation displays a pitiful disregard for the facts. Professor Hoffmann is so far from "unremitting pacifism" that he is willing, in Duties Beyond Borders, to condone preemprive attack (p.60). As for the second-court, we suspect that Professors Huntington, Mansfield, Ulam and Wilson would be, associated by Mr. Lagon's belief that they are being "led" by Professor Hoffmann.

In what way do these two individuals constitute a "monopoly"? If Mr. Lagon really has others in mind, surely any of them would have been a better example than Prof. Hoffmann. Any of the horde who force students to regurgitate knee-jerk radicalism" would do--unless Mr. Lagon is unable to find any. His accusations clearly make a mockery of themselves, or would, were it not for their overcomes. Faced with Mr. Lagon's tactics, how can one not call to mind Sen. Joe McCarthy's "discovery" of massive. Communist infiltration of the Departments of State and the Army?

Turning to Mr. Lagon's call for "balanced" teaching, it must be seen first and foremost as an assault on academic freedom. In the future, Mr. Lagon would not have professors present opinions and interpretations that they honestly believe are true; instead, they would have to strive for "balance." Of course, "balance" has a certain seductive charm, for it seems inherently fair--but this allure dissipates as soon as one begins seriously to ask what "balance" means on the practical level or who is to judge when it has been achieved.

As Hobbes makes abundantly clear, someone must judge. Currently, each professor makes his own decisions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not; but are conditions so bad that the faculty must surrender the freedom that forms part of the essence of academic life? In order to convince us that things really are that bad, Mr. Lagon invokes a left wing monopoly at Harvard--but we have seen that his claims are hardly credible.

We can only conclude that his real interest is in censorship for its own sake--or, rather, in the expectation that he will be one of the censors. Nor does he hesitate to exercise the office of censor before he has ever been nominated, castigating Prof. Womack for "speaking less than objectively." Is such a remark consistent with a call for the free "interplay of ideas"? It seems not, for in order to pronounce this condemnation Mr. Lagon must believe that his own political views are in some sense "objective." But if he thinks he already knows the objective truth, what interest can be possibly have in the free interplay of (untruthful) ideas?

Mr. Lagon may be "unwilling to fight in earnest" for his views, and may secretly fear that he and they are unable to withstand the challenge of ideological diversity. For our part, we applaud the appointment of professors who will challenge the conventional wisdom, whether more the "right" or the "left" or in the name of a new philosophy or fresh methodology. We know that there are too few, far too few, in the Arts departments of this University. Mr. Lagon will, we are afraid, emerge fundamentally unchallenged from his years at Harvard; perhaps his intellectual timorousness is the consequence. Let us pray only he has to pay the price. William K. Griffith   GSAS   Dept. of Government   David M. Steiner   GSAS   Tutor in Government   Lowell House