Don't Toast Noel at Dunster House

A SINGLE LETTER written by Noel Ignatiev has developed into a campus-wide controversy. Iganatiev, a non-resident tutor in Dunster House, wrote to the manager of the Dunster dining hall to protest the University's purchase of a toaster oven to used for kosher foods only.

The ensuing debate has centered on a university's role in accommodating the myriad interests of its disparate ethnic, racial and religious groups.

Students wrote a flurry of letters defending the toaster and attacking Ignatiev. Dunster held a big meeting to discuss the issue. Some suggested that he was an anti-Semite, a charge that Ignatiev vociferously denied. One person even suggested that Ignatiev physically abuses students who disagree with him.

For his part, Ignatiev threatened to sue The Crimson after one of our editorial writers facetiously labelled him the "Anti-Knish Tutor" and after one of our cartoonists skewered him. The whole thing became sort of absured.

But none of this provides reason enough not to rehire Ignative.

DUNSTER HOUSE Masters Karel and Hetty Liem, who made the decision on Ignative, have given insufficient reasons for not reappointing him. They say he has not been able "to foster a sense of community and tolerance and to serve as a role model for students."

Furthermore, he has apparently "impress[ed] his own beliefs upon all others, and demand[ed] immediate and unilateral changes in house policy." Finally, Ignatiev has apparently been lax in attendance at tutor meetings--although the Liems admit that this was not "the last straw" which prompted them not to reappoint Ignatiev.

What sort of "sense of community" do the Liems have in mind? It seems to be one in which no tutor challenges their much defended "house policy".

Only those tutors willing to suppress their objections to house policy or whitewash what they see as house problems are part of the Liems' "community." Like petty dictators from, say, former Eastern European regimes, the Liems want a "community" without dissent from their employees. This is, in our view, the worst sort to community one could foster.

What about "tolerance"? The Liems certainly have not shown much in this incident, and some might charge that Ignatiev himself was being "intolerant." However one feels about the kosher food-only toaster oven, the charge of intolerance seems misplaced.

One has to ask what Ignatiev will not "tolerate." He tolerates the existence of the oven--he hasn't tried to torch it and he wants to remain in the house where it is used. Most who charge him with intolerance say that if he had his wish, it would be more difficult for kosher students to eat at Dunster. In this sense, it would seem, he does not "tolerate" kosher students.

But his wish now only that the University not subsidize the kosher oven. Having to procure private funds for the toaster means that the University does nothing special to make culturally specific eating at Harvard easier for kosher students. For Ignatiev, the principle of secularism is more important than the convenience of students who choose to follow kosher rules.

Regardless of the merits of Ignatiev's arguments, charging them with intolerance is overstated, and saying that their expression makes Ignatiev a poor "role model" for Dunster is equally wrongheaded.

Only those who voice support for "house policy" or who keep their objections to it silent seem to proper "role models" by the Liems' definition. Again, these would be some of the worst sorts of role models we could imagine at a university.

AS FOR THE CHARGE that Ignatiev is "impress[ing] his beliefs on all others, we find it difficult to accept that voicing objection is tantamount to engaging in attempts at mind control--that beginning a debate is little more than brainwashing.

Of course, all arguments are attempt to convince people that one's beliefs are correct. That is basically what Harvard's commitment to "veritas" is all about. All moves to stifle argument can be seen as attempts to narrow the scope of debate such that some beliefs are never questioned--a frightening tactic for house masters to employ.

Finally, then, the reason not to rehire Ignatiev comes down to his willingness to "demand immediate and unilateral changes in house policy". But house policy should not be defined as the Liems' personal wishes only.

If a tutor wants to challenge a house policy, he or she has every right to do so. Ignite merely wrote a letter to he Dunster dining hall manager stating his opposition to a University-funded kosher food-only toaster. He even informed the Liems at the time of every step he was taking. Students were drawn into the debate, and the Liems finally agreed to pay for the toaster with their own money.

But none of this was done "immediate[ly]" or "unilateral[ly]". Ignatiev presented his arguments to the community at large, and the Liems made the final decision.

Sure, Ignatiev should have shown up at more house meetings, but writing letters and sparking campus debate are surely legitimate means for changing house policy.

The Liems' insistence that Ignatiev follow their closed-door procedures is unrealistic, especially when students should be directly involved with the decision. That the tutor meetings should be seen as the only "correct" means by which Ignatiev could inform the community about his complaint and attempt to change police simply does not wash.

To be fair, the Liems view Ignatiev's action in the toaster controversy as part of a long-standing disregard for house protocol. And Ignatiev's remarks have been perceived as insensitive by a number of Jewish students in Dunster who adhere to kosher laws--namely, those who have reported silly threats from Ignatiev about putting ham in the oven.

Ignatiev's reinstatement, if it occurs, should not be seen as a vindication of his opinions. But, in the end, this issue is about free speech. And it is the name of free speech that the Liems' decision should by vigorously protested.

THE UNIVERSITY'S free speech guidelines clearly defend "the right" of "[a]ll members of the University... to press for action on matters of concern by any appropriate means." The guidelines say that the "University must affirm, assure and protect the rights of its members to.. publicize opinion by print, sign and voice".

The Liems have to realize that their "house policy" cannot contradict Harvard's policies.

Of course they can hire and refuse to hire tutors, but their reasoning cannot be out of sync with the University's guidelines.

Therefore, Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 should step in to investigate the case and make a separate to do with his objections to Dunster House policy. Otherwise, the University's commitment to free speech will mean little.