T

HE Revolutionists at Harvard are not so sure that two and two make four; at least, they should have some doubt about it, for, as "everything changes," nothing but an odd freak of nature would prevent the integrity of numerical values from breaking up. Especially since Professor James found himself obliged to give up logic fairly, squarely, irrevocably,"* most anything might happen to the absolute authority of fixed principles in favor of results. which are pragmatically determined. At any rate, the school of philosophy which justifies itself in putting everything to the practical test to learn whether the result is good or bad, is quite at home at Harvard, and it is announced as the guiding principle with at least 45 out of the 60 members of the Harvard Socialist Club. Nor, do these young gentlemen revolutionists find themselves philosophically "queered" at the leading University of the country. "The Revolution," said Marx, "shall be the work of the philosopher." And the Revolution has And the Revolution has indeed made some progress since '48, even in staid old New England.

Each his own Authority.

In its system of education, Pragmatism has been fully accredited at Harvard. Resting the authority of knowledge solely upon experience, each man becomes his own authority. Consequently, within this system of thought, the

* A Pluralistic Universe, p. 212.

elective system is the best fitted to carry forward to its practical results the search after knowledge in any department. It has already carried a large majority forward to the acceptation of the monistic philosophy of one or another qualification and a respectable minority onward to its practical application by the propaganda of Socialism.

With no basic principle to govern the actions of men, it should not be expected that the range within which the grandfather made his experience should suffice for the grandson. It were by far too circumscribed. It should go without saying that once the ground of right reason is abandoned, one's thirst for intellectual novelty is increasingly tormented. So, the mental atmosphere is created for further excesses in those who come af

ter. Two generations give quite time enough for blasphemy to secure a place as mental science; and blasting at the rock of ages iv supposed to be a scientific operation.

Losing Light of Reason.

Denying the Absolute, first in person and then in principle, the mind loses the

light of reason, which permits the rational mind to retain its grip upon simple principles which are recognizable, but not demonstrable. When one would prove to oneself that he exists, then one is ready to doubt if two and two make four.

in

The instruction at Harvard does not leave us in possession of ourselves. One's own soul is not his own, even here, and if there is another world, no self here can be "repeated" in it. In his huge volume, “The Eternal Values," Professor Hugo Muensterberg puts the quietus upon our knowledge of ourselves Heaven, and upon ourselves as an individual personality here and now. To quote (p. 417): "Only from the unity of this whole, do we know that no self can be repeated in any other world. The world is a living, willing activity and not a dead accidental process. Our own deed becomes in that way, alone, a responsible irreplaceable participation. While our self, by its relation to the whole, goes over into the eternal, at the same time, our self gains eternal and inexhaustible significance. We are unique as selves, but ultimately, we are all in the one embracing over-self."

The Philosopher's Work.

Surely, the work of the philosopher which shall usher in the revolution is being well done at Harvard, for the Social Organism is assumed to be the one enduring personality-thus, for time and eternity, ruling out of existence, God and the individual soul.

So whether we rely upon Emerson's "oversoul" which, hovering over Harvard, creates its atmosphere of intellectual anarchy, or upon Muensterberg's "over-self" which lays the materialist foundation within that seat of learning, for the abolition of private property, we find the First Cause lacking. Consequently, he who desires to receive his education upon the basis of right reason, must seek it elsewhere than at that

place which is supposed to provide for the best education which our country can give.

It is no accident that intellectual an

archy is greatly admired at Harvard;

and no accident that Ralph Waldo Emerson has become the patron saint of anarchist publications. Truly, Anarchists. should be expected to know their own literature when they see it. And this well-known quotation is directly to the point: "I am glad to see that the terror at disunion and Anarchy is disappearing. Massachusetts, in its heroic days, had no government; was an Anarchy. Every man stood on his own feet, was his own governor, and there was no breach of peace from Cape Cod to Mount Hoosac. It is long since Emma Goldman made much progress into the circles of the cultured radicals throughout the country by quoting Emerson. If one turns the back pages of her magazine, "Mother Earth," he shall find, frequent

ly, the heartiest commendation for America's "greatest philosopher," who considered intellectual consistency the virtue of "little statesmen." Now, this inconsistency is certainly consistent with the irrational premise that Truth is this today, that yesterday, and some unknown thing tomorrow.

Emma Goldman at Harvard.

A psychology so strong between the education at Harvard and the devotees of "Mother Earth" was sure to come to fruit in reciprocal deeds. Yet, no little flutter was created recently, when the press reported that President-Emeritus Eliot's grandson, "Sam," escorted Emma Goldman into the reception-room at the Harvard Union, where "the friends

of the movement' discussed the tactical issues which have separated the Anarchist from the Socialist wing, and the best methods to be pursued in bringing in the "free society," which is the aim of both divisions of the revolution, even though they have occupied different fields ever since the Marx and Bakunine quarrel split the old "Workingman's International' into two camps.

Evidently, the startled public had forgotten the shock it received when President Eliot's mansion was opened wide. with hospitality for Gorky. Perhaps, with a flourish, meant to be a public rebuke, a pledge was given to the talented Anarchist that to Gorky the latch string of the Harvard President's door should always be out. This courtesy was the more marked coming at the very time when Gorky's Boston lecture was abandoned, because the doors of Tremont Temple were closed against him. Nor, could the Socialist Committee having the lecture in charge find another place to hold the meeting.

A Bad Example.

Eliminating the moral responsibility of setting for one's neighbors a bad example, there was certainly no objection on the score of good taste in either case. Why should not a woman well known upon two continents be the honored guest of Harvard students? If experience-good and bad as Christians would say is the sole source of cultivation, and if self-culture is the supreme end in life, why not take the means of a Gorky, or a Goldman-to become notorious? Good taste is about the most binding obligation there is outside the moral law. And it is precisely because

the philosophy at Harvard does not recognize God as the Creator of the universe that, at the University, there are no authoratative standards for moral conduct and no irrevocable norms for intellectual judgment. What better criterion than good taste might be expected after half a century under the psychology of Pantheism? When absolute standards have been wholly supplanted by the measurements of relativity, a blunder may indeed seem worse than a crime.

The Elective System.

There has been the greatest objection to the principle of authority at Harvard, and this self-elected-liberty has translated itself into the government of the University by the elective system. The student's instincts, inclinations, feelings, map out his course of study. He does not, of course, know what he ought to want to know that he may become an educated man; and yet he is set to the task of choosing what he ought to know. Even this was not quite libertarianism enough for the revolutionists; there was no provision made at Harvard for the study of the "science of Socialism." Whereupon the Socialist Club circulated a petition, which half a thousand men signed, asking that Socialist economics be added to the curriculum. The request was granted by what is known as "Economics 29".

If I may be pardoned, my point is not that the study of Socialism should not be introduced, but rather that the initiative should rightly come from the faculty, not from the student body. However, that the college should receive its due, I may say, that some four years ago, a professor of economics at

Harvard asked for an interview with the writer relative to the introduction of Socialism. "How should it be done?" was the question. Did I consider it feasible to take a class of men to hear the distinguished Socialist lecturers who should speak from time to time in Boston?

There was no doubt whatever about the necessity for the instruction at Harvard. Graduates from that institution had the right to expect an educational equipment for defense in the battles of life. Neither was there any doubt about the on-coming revolt pitching the most momentus battle that men have ever yet faced.

Question for Question.

Yet, my reply must, Yankee-fashion, consist chiefly, in asking my questioner a question: In the event of your students going to hear Debs or De Leon, what professor at Harvard is fully competent by clear-cut analyses to expose for the men the fallacies of Socialist doctrine, economic, ethical and moral?

There was no satisfatory reply. Consequently, the outcome that should be expected was that the student body might come down with the Socialistic mumps and the measles. For Socialist propagandists-classic or common-are past-masters in the art of inciting the heart's emotions, while benumbing the critical faculty of the mind. And, the worst of it is that so much of the criticism is true that, being under the control of the spellbinder, one overlooks the fact that Socialism throws out the baby along with his bath. It was indeed a hard case as the evils of the So

cialist itch are harder to cure than the original ignorance of the students. But, the students settled the vexed question in their own way, as we have seen, with "Economics 29," a half course, making progress towards a full course-so the club says.

Taking the Wrong Road.

So, the elective system comes out in the pattern made by the warp and woof of student life, showing the notion that the further away one moves from eternal varities, the greater one's progress. This conclusion is, of course, correct. But the important question is: Which way are you going? For it is to no man's advantage to make great or little progress on the wrong road.

It was asserted by Hiram Moderwell, as chairman of the Woman Suffrage committee at the legislative hearing on Beacon Hill, two years ago, that Harvard students are moving towards Socialism at a very rapid rate. Looking for the cause, it is not hard to find for "the revolution is the work of the philosopher."

In his lecture before the 11th Session of the Harvard Summer School of Theology* on The Religion of the Fu ture, the president-emeritus put into words the policy which had guided his government during his long period of authority. To quote: "The religion of the future will not be based on authority, either spiritual or temporal. The decline of the reliance upon absolute authority is one of the most significant phenomena of themodern world. This decline is to be seen everywhere

* June 22, 1909.