Last week’s letters to the editor addressed discourse, ranting, and ideology. One person’s passion is another’s lack of civility; one person’s principle is another’s rigid ideology; one person’s passionate defense of principle is another’s ugly rant. Such is the tintinnabulation of pots calling kettles black.
Principle is a prism through which a narrow issue is refracted into its key components. The more rigid the principle, and the more firmly it is held, the more clear the picture that emerges. Passed through the prism of protecting freedom of choice from the predations of local activism, Article 4 appears not as a rainbow, but as a dark cloud on Harvard’s horizon. For centuries, Harvard has been home to individual thinkers, be they leaders, or those who have chosen to follow. Mother Ann Lee’s Shakers, Bronson Alcott’s transcendentalists, Fiske Warren’s Georgists, Father Feeney’s Jesuits—all came to Harvard to establish enclaves within which to pursue their ideals, without imposing their beliefs on Harvard as a whole.
Should we now replace this “live and let live” tradition with “live and compel others to live likewise”? We are enticed to do so with the promise of monetary grants for adopting the stretch energy code, the promise that we will be promoting the common good, and even the promise that our too-drafty homes will become more comfortable for us. What are we to make of these enticements? Grants are available from other sources, in substantially larger amounts, without handing over the keys to our homes. The “common good” as understood by some should not eclipse freedom of choice for all. Our creature comfort at home seems an odd target for local legislation.
Opposition to Article 4 is not a crusade on the part of a small fringe group. In fact, it is a broader sentiment, to be expected when a faction seeks to cross the boundary between persuasion and compulsion, stirring those of less activist tendency to protect their freedom of choice. I invite residents to explore www.CommonSenseHarvard.org, where they will find, among other things, the succinct statement “We Oppose Article 4,” along with the growing list of residents putting their names to it.
Bill Barton
Prospect Hill Road
