To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I have head your editorial entitled Room for Religion in which you have taken President Pusey to task for pointing out the importance of religious knowledge. Personally, I am very encouraged by Dr. Pusey's remarks.

It is my considered opinion that no enlightened person would be so blind as to maintain that religion is something apart from the social and political complex in which we live even if, like Calvin, one questions the ultimate utility of good works. Yet in some quarters it is held that though the University should expose its students to the broadest possible influences it should nevertheless ignore and exclude the study of the development of religion. This is a singular contradiction. And it appears more irresponsible when it is realized that we live in an era in which America is being called upon to take an increasingly active role in the affairs of peoples all over the world, and that an appreciation of religious history and current religious influences is a prerequisite to an understanding of many of the problems we must face.

Furthermore to talk dogmatically of excluding "sectarianism" from the University when the consequences of such an exclusion deprive the intellectual life here of a fuller diversity smacks of the anti-religious prejudice that is one of the curses of modern life. Yet you talk of "indifference" as a freedom essential to a free university. Indeed, one should be quite free to be indifferent not only to religion but also to any other subject to which one may become exposed, but I question the right to judge and exclude other philosophies on such an arbitrary philosophical ground. Rather, religion should be fully represented at the College together with other branches of knowledge (science, languages, economics, history, et al). To do this fairly and impartially the College should give courses on the great religions and their histories given by those best qualified in these subjects. To be sure, this would probably involve "sectarianism" in the sense that representatives of the various faiths might be present on the faculty as lecturers or visiting professors. But what the objection to such a procedure could be I do not know, for the purpose of such a program would be the study of certain vital forces common to our society and also to other nations.

As to your discussion about the factor of compulsion, I fail to see its relevance to the issue, though I take exception to describing compulsion as a "characteristic" of religion . . . . Though I do recall being compelled to take certain required courses at the College which I feel it would have been both fortunate and intelligent to avoid.

However, I agree very strongly with the conclusion of your editorial: that there is room at Harvard for a religious spirit which, as long as it does not tamper with individual choice and diversity of ideas, can make a significant contribution to the life of the University. William E. W. Gowen '52, 2L