From the Editor

America is one of the most religious countries in the developed world, but Harvard is probably one of the least religious institutions in America. Closing the gap in knowledge and understanding that naturally results from this state of affairs is one of the chief goals of this issue of the HPR.
In February, Newsweek‘s Lisa Miller argued that Harvard was doing its students a disservice by slighting religion in its curriculum. Louis Menand, the Harvard English professor and New Yorker writer, was one of Miller’s primary sources. On page 36, we have an interview with Menand, the full version of which is available on HarvardPoliticalReview.com.
As I wrote in response to Miller on the HPR blog, the HPRgument, I don’t see much evidence that Harvard, unlike many other schools, lacks a religion department. But I’m not sure how much this proves. Does it show that Harvard is uncompromisingly secularized, that its administrators don’t think religion is an important field of study? I don’t think so. And scholars like Diana Eck might be surprised to hear Menand imply that, if only we had a Religion Department, we would start to cultivate experts in that field. The Harvard Divinity School provides undergraduates with an ample supply of excellent scholars and courses in the study of religion.
Still, Miller and Menand’s argument is well-taken, even if some of their premises are questionable. Of course Harvard students should learn something about religion, whether by taking a class on Islamic history, European secularization, or American politics. Or, as Menand suggests, a class on religiously-inspired literature. The unifying aim of such classes would be to expose students to a way of thinking, a set of problems, a field of study, that they might not otherwise be exposed to.
That might not seem like much to the biggest proponents of a genuine Great Books curriculum. But it’s more than Harvard now offers, with its vaguely defined “Culture and Belief” field, in which students can take classes on subjects like photography and the Roman Games. Harvard needn’t define its task as narrowly as the Great Books fans do; it should not exclude all the historical, political, and sociological issues that the study of religion properly entails.There is a middle ground between Great Books chauvinism and Harvard’s current curricular laxity.
It is our hope that this issue of the HPR occupies that middle ground, examining issues like religious demographics, government aid to religious groups, and the rise of secularism. We think there is a role for campus publications, as well as classes and curricula, to play in students’ education.