Russell Kirk, in a debate last night, said he would exclude atheists and agnostics from faculty positions, believing that the essence of truth springs from a belief in a Divine Being, and one who does not believe is essentially anti-intellectual.

Mark DeWolfe Howe '28, espousing the liberal view on the topic "Academic Freedom: The Idea and Reality," said that Kirk, by failing to define such broad terms as "natural law," "religion," and "truth" in his book, "simply used large and essentially meaningless words" to support his views on academic freedom.

But now, Howe asserted, Kirk's position is clear and intolerable. "We have passed from Edmund Burke to Trigger Burke," he said.

Howe also said that those institutions have done the most for academic freedom that have not been dogmatically committed to religion and natural law. "There has been a full flowering of liberty where academies are neutral in these matters rather than where they are committed," he added.

Kirk, on the other hand, maintained that there has been more toleration in times of certitude, more liberty when certain principles have been widely accepted. He felt that uncertainty and a clashing of views led to persecution.

In addition, he argued that unless society draws on its ancient capital of morality and religion it will degenerate into anarchy and ruin. He said that any sanction for freedom has to be based on something more than expediency, that an acceptance of natural law tends to be a protection of liberty.

Kirk also said that men of conviction, men courageous enough to express their views, will be needed to combat the "very real danger of the degradation of the democratic dogma." He further criticized the tendency of the student in becoming a mere "passive recipient of canned knowledge."