Editor’s Note: The Editor, Michael Shammas, wrote a response to this piece. You can read his response here.
While I have limited objection to the Committee decision to recommend the modification of the HLS shield, I have difficulty treating the decision-making process as legitimate given its broader social context, regardless of (true) protestations to the contrary. But the shield is ultimately not a significant concern of mine. Far more concerning are the broader implications of the insurgency which has essentially forced the Committee’s hand, and the mushrooming of similar insurrections in the haloed halls of this nation’s “academic” institutions.
I am all too familiar with social settings dominated by dogma. The shadowy feeling out for intellectual comrades, the tentative sharing of fringe opinions and careful observance of elicited reactions. The relief when one finds such comrades, and the fear when you’ve misjudged and shared too much. Most of my intellectual development took place in such a dogmatic context. When I came to Harvard, I came expecting an exciting intellectual journey in a more honest environment. But alas, all too frequently I experience myself in a church masquerading as an academic institution. The canon of principles making up church dogma. The certitude of conviction as to what is just and what is good, as if God himself has manifested so in the Wasserstein Revelation. The lip service commitments to ideals like diversity, another naked emperor clothed by a delusion quickly dispelled by one wrong comment in a class. The snickers and smirks of impartial professors and obsequious students describing “other” views condemned by history, willfully ignorant of the likelihood that they too will be condemned by history.