|
Education must account for the uniqueness of
human nature. As humans, we are the only animals
in the universe with the capacity of reason.
We interact verbally, searching the depths of understanding
about virtue and truth, mathematics and
science, literature and philosophy, political science and
leadership. We organize ourselves to accomplish goals,
build buildings, or help others from afar. Would not
then the goal of institutions of higher learning focus
on the aspects that make us human — subjects which
distinguish us from our nonhuman counterparts?
Would we not want to grow in our unique capabilities
that enable us to grow in humanity? At the very least,
without doing so, a course can never claim to examine
what is truly meaningful about an aspect of human enterprise.
But it seems that a series of courses offered at Harvard focusing on sex and sexual interaction of the genders fail to aim at this goal. These classes minimize the purpose of sex and the complimentary nature of the sexes. In the words of Richard Hogan and John Levoir in their book Covenant of Love, “If human beings are made in the image of God to give themselves as God gives Himself and if the human body is the expression of the human person, then there ought to be a physical means for a human person to express love to another human person. It is precisely masculinity and femininity which allow this unity between human persons to be realized in a bodily way. Without sexuality, there would be no physical union because we would be without the bodily means of expressing a loving self-donation, our most noble and important activity.” These are the elements of sexuality that make us different from animals and enable our relationships to carry the depth that they do. The failure to recognize these concepts makes a couple significantly more vulnerable to infidelity and thus degrades their ability to give themselves completely. It is precisely this that some Harvard classes fail to admit and in the process of overlooking this aspect, deny our human capability of loving another person with every part of ourselves. Love is separated from the self-giving that it so necessarily involves. On the first day of class, the professor of Psychology 1703: Human Sexuality addressed his students with the request that they shout all the terms they knew for the words penis, vagina, and sex. Readings on orgasms and masturbation, graphic pictures, and a clip of a rape scene were typical material. The Courses of Instruction handbook says that the students of this class will explore sex therapy, safer sex and STD prevention. One might wonder why this requires that the class host a pornography day, in which the professor shows his students exactly that. Pornography is a prime example of the reduction of love to a selfish manifestation of selfish, bodily lust on the part of one person. It is appalling enough that Harvard allows a class to demonstrate this subject matter, but with all the staggering portrayals of love that exist, why would such a class even exist? Furthermore, classes like these serve only to degrade respectful relationships between the genders. By watching these videos in which two or more people fulfill their most depraved carnal desires, our images of male-female interactions shift from an intimate communication to one of blind desire. Thoughts of a horizontal nature begin to infiltrate our minds, corroding the respect which all women and men deserve. If we cannot see someone without thinking of sex or imagining in some way a physical encounter with that person, we limit what we can learn from that person and further limit the amount we ourselves can grow. Moreover, if we can only see a physical and pleasurable action in sex, we are left with an impoverished understanding of what should be the deepest and most meaningful of relationships. Even if the classes themselves do not directly purport the aforementioned physical philosophy, the websites reveal the positions of the professors. The anthropology course entitled “Behavioral Biology of Women” has a website link with the subject title “women need to work for self satisfaction.” This obscure definition of work chooses to override the fact that motherhood in itself is both work and satisfaction. Unlike work in an office with an income and set hours, the work of motherhood has no set hours; a mother is on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. It is an all-encompassing job that requires chauffeuring, secretarial work, teaching, psychology, management, and all else that is necessary to the intellectual, moral, and emotional development of a child. Furthermore, this is done in a society that struggles in grasping how how a job can be important or desirable if it does not include a hefty salary. Also on this website is a link to a “questions for brides” page. All the suggestions given at this bridal site discourage women from their marriage plans. Some of the recommendations included reevaluating the intentions of the bride. Are you escaping the fear that you might never find any one else? Are you afraid your biological clock will run out? Are you trying to find security? None of the questions encouraged women in their decision — condescendingly assuming that women who want to marry do so without really knowing what they are doing. Why should such a cynical view of love and commitment be favored? It is hard to imagine how this website has anything to do with the class, nor does it appear to serve any educational purpose. This website furthers this dichotomy of love and sex that is increasingly purported by classes at Harvard. This only demonstrates that a class analyzing sex automatically carries a bias. This website had no references to pages that purport different ideologies, no references to Phyllis Schlafly and her ideals of feminism, no advice concerning how to prepare best for a marriage, what to expect from a living with a man for a long time. Rather, it supplies ideas on how to avoid marriage, how to stay away from men, how to get away from children. What seems to be occurring is that the spheres of education and intimacy are closing in on each other, blending in ways inappropriate and unnecessary. Harvard is doing a moral disservice to its students by showing graphic sexual intercourse. Its aim should be at bettering the understanding of all that goes into sexual relationships between man and woman, but especially what makes them human. This cannot be accomplished by constantly reminding us of the physicality and lust of human relationships. It would be far better to offer classes that manage to focus on what transcends the purely carnal aspect of sex. If they choose to analyze sexuality, it should be in the context of the wholeness of man, not only what man shares with any other animal. And because we are human, because we can overcome the merely physical, we should focus on our ability to train ourselves to achieve this end. It is only when we can surpass our basic animal nature that we can realize our humanity. |