According to the students themselves, the most decisive factor in the change has been their "lectures and assigned reading in courses"--reinforced by the "influence of friends" (who are, of course, reading many of the same books) and "increased thinking about political questions" (stimulated largely by course work and, to some extent, by increased "independent" reading).
Economics 1, with the greatest enrollment of any College course is a case in point. Using a popular text-book by MIT's Paul A. Samuelson, the course lays great stress on Federal fiscal policy (e.g. "countercyclical spending" by the national government to help offset periodic business slumps). Lecturers include Seymour Harris, Chairman of the Department and John Kenneth Galbraith, author of The Affluent Society.
Under these circumstances, Harvard's introductory course in economics can hardly be considered impartial--it certainly presents the "liberal" position in a favorable light, and tends to downgrade what Galbraith calls the "conventional wisdom." It is not surprising that a third of Harvard's students declare themselves in favor of "reduction of current unemployment by government action, even at the price of aggravating inflation," or that two-thirds support "government wage and price controls to check the inflation"--the second policy presumably helping to balance the first.
Of course, this is not to imply that all Harvard students are brainwashed by Economics 1. But the selectiveness of reading lists and lectures often allows an unhealthy "argument-by-omission to replace a complete presentation of all "sides" of a question. Certainly this academic influence has helped produce a curious political spectrum within the College.
Although a fifth still describe themselves as "conservative" in temperament, over half prefer the safe and evasive category of "moderate liberal." In addition, a sixth of the students appear willing to admit that they remain "politically indifferent." Neither Hoffa nor the "missile-gap" can arouse them from their lethargy. Apparently ignoring the dictum that "knowledge is power," these Political Indifferents fervently hope that "ignorance is bliss."
Except for its crusty conservatives and temperamental radicals, the College remains largely a hotbed of unconcern. Safely perched in the "middle-of-the-road," many of its "moderate liberals" hold fast to their comfortable philosophy of "don't-give-a-damnism." When sufficiently aroused by a crisis--or even by a simple emergency they lean to the Left and lend their silent aid and comfort to the Respectable Radicals.
In addition to his lectures and assigned realing, a student's newspaper and magazines act as the second major influence on his political beliefs. Seven-tenths read the New York Times--the country's most impartial, unbiased news source.
But the Times consists of more than news columns, and its Sunday magazine appears heavily loaded with articles by "liberal" correspondents (including a number of the more literary Senators). It has been charged that its Book Review section often ignores or blasts "conservative" books of high quality, and that its "News of the Week in Review" (after the first two pages) often shows a decidedly "liberal" slant.
In second place among the publications, almost three-fifths of the College students read Henry R. Luce's Time, and more than a third also look at his Life. Though some students violently criticize these two magazines the slick, fast-moving style of Time and Life apparently appeals even to Harvard's high intellectual level. Luce's columns are definitely the meat in Harvard's political sandwich.
Much less successful at Harvard are Newsweek (a sixth read it), David Lawrence's conservative U.S. News and World Report (an eighth), Max Ascoli's Reporter (a tenth). Only a twentieth read either the liberal Nation or New Republic, and a mere handful look at Bill Buckley's infant National Review.
Just as three-fifths read Time and call themselves "moderate liberals," about two-thirds believe that America's two-party system is "satisfactory on the whole and should be essentially retained." In contrast, only one-fifth (extremists of both Right and Left) favor an alteration of the present party structure "so that sharper lines could be drawn" between the two parties--the G.O.P. presumably returning to its conservativism of a by-gone era, and the Democrats moving even further to the Left and becoming, in name as well as in fact, the party of the Respectable Radicals.
In addition, a tenth would like to see a Third Party successfully founded to crusade forcibly for their political beliefs. Though a few students ask for an American Conservative Party, most of the tenth are radicals who feel that their proposals will not be accepted, or accepted fast enough, in the present party structure. Almost all those who termed their political temperament "radical" also asked for a Third Party of the Left.
Harvard's dominant majority, however, stands firmly behind the "moderate liberalism" of both major parties. As "Northerns Democrats" or "Modern Republicans," they silently support the stock solution to a growing list of problems: call on Washington. Of course, Federal action may be the best (and in some cases, the only) solution to many modern-day challenges--but this is not the point. That this stock answer and similar slogans are passively accepted by many "moderate liberals"--often without intellectual study of the economic and political implications involved for our society, but in smug and self-satisfied silence--this is the danger. By his willingness to "go along," the "moderate liberal" in name becomes the Respectable Radical in practice.
Stated briefly, reaction to the political challenge has divided undergraduates into two distinct groups: Blissful Indifference, and Ineffective Desperation. No one takes the latter group very seriously. This leaves the potent majority of the Center, the drifting "moderates."
Of course, the prevailing state of Blissful Indifference is not entirely the student's fault. Finding himself confronted with an intellectual dilemma, he can either assert without adequate knowledge, or remain silent and ineffective. In addition to appearing the lesser of these two evils, silence is also easier.
If the student hopes to speak--or even think--about politics intelligently he must face three baffling problems. First, the fact that politics is becoming increasingly complicated, and second, its effects are becoming more and more explosive. As a mode of debate, argument-by-slogan is more dangerous than ever before, and as a mode of operation, policy-by-experimentation is less feasible. Thirdly, as the magnitude of political problems multiplies, the authority responsible for their solution becomes progressively concentrated. Faced with complex, crucial issues, and an imposing, impersonal government, students are at a loss to understand how they can act, if at all.
Perhaps this explains why most student groups for political study end in quick failure. After one or two enthusiastic meetings, most members realize that they lack both the time and the special competence to gain an adequate understanding of, say, the disarmament issue--the variety of plans involved, their implications, the history of negotiations, the forces at work on the participants.
Uninterested in defending an imaginative political position, and perhaps largely unable to do so, the overwhelming majority assumes the only political stance that needs no defense--that of the "moderate liberal." It is difficult not to admire those "middle-of-the-roaders" who have, by serious intellectual effort, earned for themselves a place in the camp of the genuine "moderate liberals.