Veritas in Libertate

By Lila E. Nieves-Lee

In today’s world, we are often expected to conform our behaviors and beliefs to fit the politi­cally correct guidelines society has set forth. Personal opinion is no longer something to be revered, that is if the individual’s opinion does not fall neatly into politically correct norms. From politics and food preferences to religion, every choice a person makes must avoid offending the sensibilities of the pow­ers that be in society. Religion, particularly Christianity, has been hit the hardest by the politically correct fatwah, and Harvard has been an avid proponent of denouncing the faith as a politically incorrect relic of the past.

When Harvard College was founded in 1636 under the name “New College,” one of its purposes was to train Puritan ministers. In its 1646 “Rules and Precepts,” the College set forth the objective that “…every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life….” This mission was the principle behind Harvard’s official motto adopted in 1692, Veritas Christo et Eccle­siae, or “Truth for Christ and the Church.” The original crest consisted of three books with the letters VE – RI – TAS printed on the pages of two open books and on the cover of the overturned third book. The top two open books were intended to represent all the knowledge that mankind comprehends, and the third book was overturned to represent all that remains unknown. In the mid-1900s with the modernist movement, however, the third book was turned face-up and the motto was shortened to its current six letters, signaling an end to both scientific humility and Har­vard’s acceptance of its religious background.

Evidence of this original motto, how­ever, can still be found around campus, specifically on the entranceway arches to Matthews Hall, on Johnston Gate, on the walls of Memorial Hall, and on official Harvard University documents, including diplomas.

So while students unthinkingly eat “Veri­tas” waffles at Sunday brunch, an extensive religious history lies hidden beneath the lay­ers of the modernist-secularist movement. The adjustments to Harvard’s crest, as well as countless other efforts to expunge traces of religion from campus, are part of an inexorable march toward embracing secularism and forgetting our religious roots.

Western culture in recent decades has seen atheism transform from a personal preference to a kind of combative religious fervor. As regrettable as it may be to see this force take hold of Harvard, other aspects of our culture seem to be moving much more rapidly toward outright suppression of religious faith. One glaring example is the American public school system, which actively promotes the atheistic viewpoint by refusing students their con­stitutional right to express personal religious beliefs, so long as they do not infringe upon those of others.

Examples of this abound: officials at UCLA last June denied a graduating college student the right to speak of Jesus Christ as an influence on her life in her own personal graduation statement. A valedictorian at a Michigan high school was told recently that includ­ing quotes from the Bible in his speech about a life lesson could not be allowed at graduation. In cases such as these, a line must be drawn between the understandable and the absurd. While public schools should not endorse any specific religion, they, as institutions, should allow their students to express personal reli­gious beliefs within the proper context. For­bidding a student to speak about the Bible, Jesus, or any other religious belief during a speech of a personal nature is inexcus­able, both by common standards of decency and in terms of the laws of our country.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that “…prohibiting the free exercise thereof [reli­gion]; or abridging the freedom of speech…” is not allowed. Although this definition has been distorted over the years and at times applied too liberally, the essence of the First Amendment is that every individual should have the right to speak his or her own mind without fear of governmental repercussion, so long it brings no direct harm to another. By banning expressions of religion and moving toward a society based solely on scientific ap­proaches, we are ignoring both our religious roots and our constitutional underpinnings.

Intellectualism does not require throw­ing off the “archaic” yoke of religion. An individual can easily be both scientific and understanding of the numerous dynamics that exist in our world today and yet still have an appreciation for that which has come before.

The classic view is not something to be relegated to ancient Greek epics and well-read literature, but a view that appreciates the history that has formed the present and the golden age of all things before. Harvard, along with much the rest of America, seems to have forgotten that sometimes not everything can be discovered. One book must remain turned down; to think that all knowledge will one day be discovered is to embrace the heresy of modernism.