Value Of Cities Is In Its Lessons, Not Its Annoyances

To the editors:



In “Fool For the City” (comment, Nov. 7), Nikhil G. Mathews argues that the crime, pollution, and lack of chirping birds and beautiful grass are the reasons why the urban setting of Harvard is a drawback.

Ironically, these “terrors of urban living” seem to denigrate the relative trivialities of the country (chirping birds and glorious grass) and accentuate the important educational opportunity available from living in a city like Cambridge. After all, I’d rather wake up to the sound of a blaring horn and be exposed to the deepest problems of society—which are laid bare for all to see in Cambridge—than be serenaded by chickadees in a tranquil setting where the only people I run into are transplanted suburbanites who close their eyes to the problems of the ghetto on their way to a job on the Upper West Side.

As Harvard students, we have a responsibility to fix the ills of our world. But to fix them, we’ve got to know them. Maybe if we personally understand how the other half lives, we’ll be more likely to dedicate our lives to their service.



ANDREW L. KALLOCH ’06

November 7, 2005