In Defense of Nerf Guns

Responding to the recent proliferation of plastic firearms and neon Nerf missiles, Harvard has chosen to enforce its own Social Avenue Limitation Treaty. Last week, the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO) notified all first-years that they were forbidden to play any version of the game Assassin. According to Dean of Freshmen Elizabeth S. Nathans, the game is "destructive" and "fundamentally at odds with basic standards of behavior and interaction in the College."

What is it about the game that makes Nathans so queasy? "Fake guns can look like real guns," she claims. Not if they're fluorescent-colored and loaded with large sponges. "Simulated stalking looks very much like real stalking," she warns. But real stalking--for Harvard students, at least--is usually done in Unix. Or maybe Nathans is concerned with the concept of "killing." No fear, the game could be modeled after Pforzheimer's game of Gotchal, where students "tag," not "shoot."

One would be hard-pressed to think that the FDO actually believes the game is legitimately plagued by security concerns. Rather, threatening to enforce a ban (which nobody's heard of until now) under a feeble excuse is indicative of a short-sighted view of campus life. Normally, the College should be jumping to endorse precisely this type of social activity--after all, students are interacting with each other in a meaningful and creative context which doesn't require drugs or alcohol.

Perhaps the FDO is taking its lead from the Masters of Lowell House, who, two weeks ago, banned the game because it "is not in keeping with spirit of community life." But it is one thing for House Masters to assess the value of individual House-wide activities. Although we encourage the Masters of Lowell to give the game a chance after all, the game--in one form or another--has thus far successfully promoted positive values of community and social interaction in Pforzheimer and Quincy Houses), it is ultimately their decision whether or not the game is consistent with the spirit of their house.

It is an entirely different matter for Nathans, employing an utterly bogus rationale, to prevent 1,600 first-years from organizing or participating in a valid social activity. Not only does it stifle Harvard's already impoverished social life, but it seems to represent a condescending and overly paternalistic attitude on the part of the Dean of Freshmen.