When Harvard University was founded in 1636, its purpose was to train a native Puritan clergy that could function independently of the Oxbridge immigrant pastorate. This mission was perhaps best defined in Harvard’s 1646 “Rules and Precepts,” which held that “the maine [sic] end of [a student’s] life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life.” Even the school’s motto, “Veritas,” used to be “Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia”—“Truth for Christ and Church.”

It wasn’t until the mid-19th century that Harvard began to move away from its theological foundation and towards a humanistic philosophy of education that emphasized reason and intellectual freedom. The modern research university Harvard is today is the culmination of this secularization. But with recent headlines such as “Harvard committee proposes compulsory religion course for undergraduates” showing up in major international news outlets, one might question whether the decision to include a “reason and faith” requirement in Harvard’s new general education report was circumspect and in lockstep with the College’s progressive history.

To be fair, the media has somewhat distorted the semantics of “reason and faith” by portraying the requirement as a religious apology. It is not. No course required will focus on eulogizing the Holy Trinity or touting the wonders of enlightenment and nirvana. The Task Force on General Education merely considers religion an important facet of the world that “Harvard’s graduates will confront in their lives both in and after college” and wants to help students “understand the interplay between religious and secular institutions, practices, and ideas.” Under the proposed requirement, students will presumably study the influence of religion in historical, scientific, and political contexts, and not theistic doctrine itself.

But the biggest problem by far with having a faith-based component in general education is not so much the content but the way such a component would be perceived. The media has already repeatedly alluded to Harvard returning to its Puritan roots. Even if the College somehow manages to remove this stigma of association with English Protestantism, it still risks being pigeonholed as giving undue emphasis to the study of religion and being grouped with parochial schools.

Creating a solitary requirement to mandate the study of such a personal and sensitive topic is counterproductive despite the Task Force’s best intentions of trying to encourage students “to become more self-conscious about their own beliefs and values” and “to become more informed and reflective citizens.” It will only generate controversy about whether it should be studied, taking away from its educational value and turning a well-intentioned requirement into a hoop for students to jump through.

What the College should instead recognize is that “reason and faith” need not be included as a separate “area of inquiry and experience.” Existing courses in religion can already find a comfortable niche in one or more of the other categories delineated by the Task Force, such as “Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change” or “The United States and the World: Historical and Global Perspectives.”

Furthermore, the very interdisciplinary nature and ubiquity of religion suggests that one need not even take classes that explicitly address the topic in their course titles to acquire perspective about its applicable significance. It is hard to imagine how one could take a class on American government and fail to struggle with religiously-charged political issues such as stem cell research and school prayer or how one could take a class on European history without grappling with clashes of religion in the Crusades or the Reformation. The case could be made that undergrads need to experience a more catholic variety of religious issues outside the Eurocentric tradition, but even with a faith-based requirement, students cannot be forced to take courses that explore particular beliefs.

Numerous other possible requirements, which are less nebulous and divisive, are compelling alternatives to “reason and faith.” The report, for example, conspicuously neglects to recommend that students receive a firm grounding in the basic principles of economics. It is difficult to see how a general education curriculum will prepare “students to be citizens of a democracy within a global society” without giving them a basic understanding of markets. The lack of emphasis in the report on the hard sciences and mathematics—a student could conceivably graduate barely having glanced at any numbers—also raises grave concerns, as these subjects are becoming increasingly applicable. While general education should not be pre-professional, allowing students to graduate from college in the contemporary world without receiving any rigorous, post-secondary training in these disciplines is irresponsible.

To recommend “reason and faith” as a general education requirement was a bold decision, and the Task Force’s commitment to innovation should be commended. But Harvard’s desire to follow in the footsteps of past curricular reviews by assuming the role of the gallant knight crusading into uncharted territory has gone too far. The Faculty should replace “reason and faith” with something more sensible.

Yifei Chen ’09, a Crimson editorial editor, is an economics and government joint concentrator in Cabot House.