Five years ago Nathan M. Pusey because President of Harvard University, and for five years his philosophy of education has been the object of both praise and doubt. At the present time the doubt has centered in a vehement and disorganized discussion on the proper use of Memorial Church, a discussion which has clouded the larger issues more than it has clarified them.

Memorial Church is not merely a building in the Yard, not merely a "non-sectarian" Protestant Church, whatever that might be. Memorial Church has become a symbol in the larger debate as to whether Harvard is, or ought to be, a Christian institution, and what role, if any, the President should play in promoting a religious' philosophy.

There can be no doubt but that the President wants to promote such a philosophy. As an individual his activities would arouse little concern, but as the President of Harvard his views are of great importance to the rest of the University. Further, the President is the upholder of the Harvard tradition, and his attempt to remake or redefine that tradition must be questioned, if not challenged.

In his discussions of religion at Harvard, the President has invoked the University's "Christian tradition" as the guide for his beliefs and actions. In so doing, he has certainly oversimplified the Harvard tradition. There have been many Christian traditions at Harvard. The University's religious commitment has expanded form a narrow Calvinism to the lack of commitment which represents the modern Harvard. Since the late nineteenth century, Harvard's religious tradition has been based upon a minimal moral faith and an abstract principle called "Veritas." The tradition has been inclusive rather than exclusive, one of multiplicity rather than conformity.

The only all embracing tradition to which every member of the University community need assent is the tradition of scholarship. For President Pusey, as for many others, it might seem absurd for a man to be "ultimately concerned" merely with scholarship. But Harvard is not an individual. It is a corporate entity deriving its strength from the fact that its members agree upon a common purpose--the pursuit of their individual visions of truth wherever these may lead. For many, perhaps for most, the search leads to the Christian Revelation of God. But that is the concern not of the University, but of individual teachers and students.

A university can only achieve greatness when its members agree to disagree. One important area in which such diversity is essential is the realm of religious opinion; in a community of scholars, Church and University, like Church and State, are best separated. Such a separation does not imply abandoning of religious conviction. Instead it affirms a belief that men of all faiths can work together more effectively when all are treated as equal than when some are welcome while others are merely tolerated.

It is of course true that the President and many of his colleagues regard rigid separation of education and religion as both dangerous in theory and impossible in fact. But it is also true that a majority of the Faculty and students disagree with them.

In this situation it is incumbent upon the President to avoid committing Harvard to any official religious belief, including his own. Harvard's greatness today depends on its lack of institutional commitment to any faith but faith in the scholarly ideal and in the universality implicit in such an ideal.