The latest grievance of social justice warriors at Harvard is to the use of the title “House Master” to describe those people who are in charge of the residential and educational facilities called “Houses”.

In their view, the term “master” evokes slavery, and thus must go.

Harvard quickly surrendered, as the present crew of House Masters “unanimously” agreed that the title is offensive. What will replace it is uncertain, as is the fate of the multitudinous other uses of the term “master” throughout the English-speaking world.

Alumnus Dale A. Jenkins, Class of 1960, responded to these events with a letter to the Chairman of Harvard’s governing board:

DALE A. JENKINS

New York, NY 10022

December 28, 2015

Mr. William F. Lee

. . . .

Dear Mr. Lee:

Recently the Harvard administration announced that the title of House Master of the Harvard houses would be changed because certain students have asserted that the title has connotations of slavery.  This is a deplorable development.  The title of House Master goes back centuries to English universities who accorded the title to faculty members who assumed the role of tutors or mentors to students.  The English word “master” is derived from the Latin magister, which means teacher. 

Dating from the construction of the Houses in the 1930s, the Harvard administration wisely provided for a senior faculty member with his family to reside in each House as the House Master.  As persons of fine character assumed these positions the role grew to become one of mentor, teacher, counselor, intellectual leader, loco parentis and humanist.  House Master, or Master of a Harvard house, has nothing to do with slavery.  Further, to change this title is a symbolic rejection of the long and distinguished line of faculty members who served the University in this role and benefitted thousands of graduates. A few just from my era were Charles H. Taylor, John H. Finley, Jr., and Gordon Fair.  Others continued this great tradition over many decades up to the present. 

This incident is yet another example of a radical minority’s attempt to control the use of words, and to unjustifiably deny the legitimate use of particular words by others.  It is an infringement on the University’s right of freedom of expression, particularly the use of appropriate and time-honored titles for faculty members who assume leadership positions in the Harvard houses.  In addition, it is a rejection of the experiences of thousands of Harvard graduates, the vast majority of whom prospered under the House system, which included the House Master, and its connection to the traditions of great universities even older than Harvard.  Just because the same word is used in a completely different context should not affect the validity or appropriateness for its use in the Harvard houses.  It is really just a play for power under the guise of sensitivity to the emotions of others. 

This rude and exaggerated pretense of emotional injury, combined with the threat of hostility, has cowed the Harvard administration – president, deans, and current House Masters - into a pitiful surrender to the wishes of this radical group.  There is no indication that this power play reflects the views of more than a small but threatening core group of agitators.  Moreover, this and other demands using similar tactics will have the effect of separating, not uniting, the student body.

This weak surrender stands in sharp contrast to the valiant actions taken by Harvard President Nathan Pusey during the communist witch-hunting period in the early 1950s.  Tenured professors at major universities had been dismissed for even purported membership in the Communist party.  Demands were made to dismiss physics Prof. Wendell Furry because of similar associations earlier in his life.  Pusey, with the support of the Harvard Corporation, refused to dismiss Furry.  Pusey upheld Furry’s constitutional right to refuse to answer questions about his previous associations.  Despite withering attacks in 1953 from Sen. Joseph McCarthy against Furry and Harvard itself, Pusey prevailed.  Furry continued on the faculty, made significant scientific contributions, and served as chairman of the physics department in the late 1960s.  It was Pusey’s finest hour, and his actions were a victory for Harvard, for constitutional law, and for human decency.

It is important to note the sharp difference in the potency of the two protagonists against Harvard.  The worst that probably can be expected from the student radicals, at least at this point, are vulgar emails and other communications, defaced University property and trespassing.  The situation in the 1950’s was far more threatening.  The entire nation, including senior members of the federal government, was aroused to a frenzy to persecute anyone with the faintest connection, even years earlier, with the Communist party.  Some citizens went to jail for contempt of Congress by invoking their constitutional rights. The threat to the Harvard community and faculty members was far more deadly than anything faced now by student radicals.  Yet Pusey stood firm.

However, make no mistake about the goals of the radicals.  Victory on the elimination of “master” will lead to other demands.  Faculty appointments are fair game, as well as heavier allocations of University resources to accommodate their individual preferences.  Even the selection process for membership in the Board of Overseers or the Harvard Corporation could be targeted. 

Referring back to the issues of slavery and possible goals of the radicals, slave economies were the norm in many parts of the world until comparatively recent times.  It would be logical for the radicals who are focused on slavery at any place or time to target representations of leaders of such civilizations.  For example, we could expect demonstrations at museums where statues of Greek city-state leaders and Roman emperors, senators, generals, and philosophers are displayed – persons who invariably were slave owners.

Our sister universities have already made panicked misjudgments regarding constitutional rights of free speech and decent behavior.  Princeton has substituted “head” for master.  Standby for cartoons of Navy toilet facilities, as well as references to various parts of human anatomy.  Using CEO will bring forth associations with the worst forms of corporate greed and squash any sense of humanism.  Yale, in a child-like abdication of its responsibilities and previous standards, has arranged for the “resignation” of instructor Erika Christakis.  She dared to send an email merely asking about sensitivities to Halloween costumes that the radicals considered emotionally damaging.

The official site of the University states that the Harvard Corporation is responsible for assuring that Harvard remains true to its mission.  Presumably this includes upholding the laws of the United States, including those set forth in the Constitution, with respect to Harvard students.  Student groups are not separate societies with different standards than the rest of our culture.  Students at Harvard are not entitled to an exemption from the law just because they are students.  Illegal actions to prevent the Harvard administration from exercising its responsibilities and rights of free expression invite chaos unless countered effectively. 

The possibility exists that some students will extort other students, faculty members or administration officials, deface or destroy property or trespass onto University officials’ offices. Students should understand that there is no place for them at Harvard if they commit illegal or criminal acts.  Hiding in a crowd will not diffuse their responsibility to respect the law and the rights of others.

In the McCarthy witch-hunting era it was Boston lawyer Joseph Welch who was sufficiently talented and courageous to take on McCarthy.  His efforts during the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954 followed those of Pusey and Harvard, and McCarthy was brought down.

Harvard needs to state plainly and simply that the title of House Master, after due consideration, will not be changed.  Harvard, still recognized as a leader in higher education, is positioned to stake out a lawful and principled position about freedom of expression that also could inspire other institutions of higher education across the country.  However, to accomplish this Harvard needs someone with the emotional strength and intellectual power, as Pusey and Welch exhibited in the 1950s, to insure that Harvard remains true to its mission in the face of powerful opposition. 

Will that person please stand up?

Very sincerely,

Dale A Jenkins

Class of 1960

CC: Harvard Corporation Members

       Selected Alumni