It's always entertaining to read about one's own school in an outside publication, especially when the article is featured under such a grandiose title as "Imperial Harvard." In the first of three Harper's articles on different U.S. schools, David Boroff has attempted to communicate what is Harvard by analyzing varied facets of University life. And although some might quibble on points where the article invades their own private worlds, the emerging synthesis is pleasing though vague.
In general, the author approaches Harvard in a way the blind men handled the elephant, bit by bit. He tries to let the University reveal itself through vignettes of sections, CRIMSON editorials, student comments; and if he does not capture the Gestalt of the University, he shows its diversity well.
Boroff should be well-equipped as any non-Harvardman to describe Cambridge, 38. He teaches at Brooklyn College, is a literary critic, and was a former prison psychologist--a helpful attribute for dealing with the University. Harper's proudly reports that Boroff talked with deans and hundreds of students, and even ate a Roast Beef Special at Elsie's.
Where he does generalize about Harvard, Boroff has a tendency to be pleasingly vapid. For instance, "students and faculty are united on one article of faith: the greatness of the Harvard idea." Not too many people would quarrel with that, but then what is "the Harvard idea?" Commenting on a certain lack of intellectual daring, Boroff says: "The trend is toward synthesis, possibly encouraged by the electric and integrative character of the General Education courses." To this reader, it would seem rather that Harvard tends to be overly analytic, despite Gen-Ed packages, but why, anyway, should synthesis mitigate zeal, as Boroff suggests?
But aside from the occasional flaccid generalization, the Harper's presentation does seem to treat many aspects of Harvard accurately and with interest. Diversity in the student body, Harvard aristocracy, tutorial, the growing intellectualism, clubs, and social life--all get the once over in what might be termed a Harvard Sampler.
An occasional sharp observation strikes home: "Appreciation for the idiosyncratic is part of the Harvard mystique.... it goes with saying the idiosyncratic must never get too far out of hand." This sort of semi-ironical comment replaces most value judgements in the article. Reporter Boroff does not consider it his job to label something good or bad; he is describing, not judging. Thus for the insider, his article will be amusing but not stimulating, a coverage, not a critique. Though it seems more could have been done in evaluating Harvard, Boroff's article provides a slick tapestry of our "well-mannered colossus."
