Persecution and the art of writing
Philosophers writing under the tyrannical conditions that have prevailed throughout most of human history are of course not free to divulge their innermost thoughts if their thoughts are heterodox and threatening to the regime under which they live. The powerful example of Socrates has served to remind philosphers of the hazards of freely speaking their minds. Beginning with his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, the great teacher Leo Strauss explained how philosophers nevertheless learned to convey their teachings through esoteric writing.
Harvard University possesses some of the least flattering characteristics of ancient Athens (as well as some of the best). Indeed, former Harvard President Larry Summers suffered a Socratic fate based on charges akin to the charges brought against Socrates: He corrupts the youth by teaching them not to believe in the gods of the city and turns them against their elders.
Harvard Professor Harry Lewis seems to have learned something about the art of esoteric communication. While enthusiastically observing the conventional pieties of the Harvard demos at the open and close of his Morning Prayer at Memorial Church last month -- which he adapted for a Harvard Crimson column this week -- Professor Lewis ventured heterodoxy at the center of his remarks:
Students wishing to serve their country by becoming military officers can join the unit at MIT. There are actually more Harvard cadets than MIT cadets there. But ROTC may not meet officially at Harvard, and the costs MIT incurs on Harvard’s behalf are paid not by Harvard but by alumni volunteers.Students and readers who think through the heterodoxy at the center of Professor Lewis's remarks may even come to understand how it undermines the conventional pieties at their open and close. Professor Lewis could have taught President Summers a thing or two about how such things must be done at Harvard, where some might be misled into thinking that the conditions of freedom obtain or that they have rendered politic and pedagogic irony obsolete. But then again, Professor Lewis has had the benefit of President Summers's example from which to relearn some old lessons.Harvard denies these modest forms of support in the name of the important principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. No Harvard money may support any organization that excludes homosexuals—even the US armed forces, which protect the freedoms we have to debate this dilemma. And so MIT gives our students the opportunity to defend us, while giving Harvard the opportunity to feel morally pure.
But can we achieve moral purity for ourselves in one area by shifting a separate moral burden to other shoulders?
I admire the idealism of those who have fought for gay rights over the past 40 years and who have educated us about their importance. Like many, I believe the ban on homosexuals in the military is unwise and will eventually be lifted.
But I don’t think Harvard’s stance on ROTC is morally tenable. We should not attempt to remove the barriers facing some of our students by placing stumbling blocks in the path of others.
Via Bill Katz.
To comment on this post, go here.
