Kinda puts a new spin on the line from a well-known Cornell a capella group song about the Crimson:

"They're kinda cocky/
And they can't play hockey."

I'm sorry Dave, but I disagree with you on this one. This does nothing to you: if you close your eyes, you won't receive the magazine, you won't read it, and in all likelihood, you won't meet anyone who was in it. If you think pornography is exploitative, take it up with a legislature and have it banned: these are all consenting adults, and, the fact is, pornography is a powerful cultural force. If these girls want to participate in it, that's their business not yours.

But your opposition doesn't only stem from a revulsion of pornography, but from being embarrassed because of your alma mater. You're absolutely entitled to feel that way, but to expect the administration to step in would be wrong. I'm not sure how it works at Harvard, but at Columbia (my alma mater), student groups had autonomy with their funding choices for very important reasons, chief of which is that they didn't want administrators telling them what they could and couldn't do with their tuition dollars. 35 years ago that involved anti-war protests. If these Harvard students decided that they want some porn rag, it's their student activities checks that's funding it. If it's unpopular, the students will vote in a new student government that will deny the magazine funding.

Asking Larry Summers to step in in the name of "adult" morality would be the worst kind of precedent: your undergraduate years are a time of experimentation, and within boundaries, students should be encouraged to explore and experiment. I'm sure Harvard sponsors dozens of groups and organizations that are unpopular, marginal, exploitative, and I'm sure they all contradict each other when taken together. But that's the beauty of being an undergraduate. These students will have to live with their choices just like any other adult: Larry Summers shouldn't be the one to step in and protect them as if they were really children.

Finally, I'm not too worried about Harvard's vaunted reputation. A group of students at Yale a few years ago got University funding to film a pornographic movie on campus. Yale is still a pretty good school last time I checked, and I'm sure Harvard will survive this too.

(Insert snarky remark about GWB's reason for bailing on the Nat'l Guard early here)

"I made a deal with the military so I could attend Harvard Business School."

Ah well, U of Arizona has no doubt had its errors in judgment too.

i think a mag full of nekkid college GUYS would be cool. why do you think it would be girls? (how boring.)the article just sez undergraduates.
but seriously, i'm not really understanding this. who pays to publish this mag? is it really everyone's tuition? are all students forced to pay for things whether they are opposed to them or not? i thought tuition paid for the professors to teach the classes and the upkeep of the libraries, labs and buildings. if you are a student and opposed to porn, isn't forcing you to pay for its publication like forcing catholic doctors to give abortions? but i think i'm missing the point, somehow, as usual. sorry i'm so dense. but why should any university, let alone an ivy league school, be publishing porn? it sure sounds inappropriate for a college to publish a porno mag. i mean, is this a source of income to pay for new buildings or something? because even though i never went to college, i don't think that's an ethical way to raise money for education, even if the undergraduates want to pose. and they legally can.
i understand your embarrassment, dave. if i was smart or rich enough to get into a school like harvard, which i'm not, i sure wouldn't want to go into a bookstore and see the latest edition of "the harvard porno mag."
and daniel, just because you did really stupid stuff 35 years ago doesn't mean it's a good idea for everyone else to do really stupid stuff now. i wouldn't do it if i had the most perfect body on the planet and they paid me a million dollars. and besides, what if you want to get a respectable job someday outside the porno industry, like say, in banking and you co workers or clients got hold of your porno poses? or your KIDZ? you want your daughter seeing her daddy like that? i don't think so. it would be bad enough if your parents really were sluts, but you sure don't want concrete proof.
wow, i just read what i just wrote and i sound exactly like my dad and i'm only 23. i guess you really do turn into your parents. so i'm extra glad they didn't pose in porno mags.

Too bad its pages will be filled with a bunch of ugly rich chicks.

lisa, it's not a porn magazine. it's just free speech (note sarcasm).

from cnn.com:

A Harvard Crimson newspaper story described H Bomb as a "porn magazine," but Baldegg and Hrdy dispute that description in a statement released by a Harvard spokesman.

"What we are proposing is an outlet for literary and artistic expression that is both desired and needed, not a pornographic magazine," it read.

You know, the Constitution protects the right to free speech, not "the right to free speech as long as I agree with it."

Nobody is forcing anybody to read this magazine, nor is anybody being forced to appear in it. So what's the problem?

I agree with John Y, David. This is a free speech issue only at this point. You characterize Harvard as sponsoring the magazine, but the action in the linked article falls short of sponsoring, a word that indicates support. The faculty member advisor for the publication? That's his free speech, and does not imply sponsorship by the university. This is merely recognition of the organization. The CCL's job is to approve requests for student organizations for recognition (See (http://www.registrar.fas.harvard.edu/handbooks/student/chapter5/committee_on_house_life.html)). This enables the magazine to apply for funding, but that is a separate and competitive process; to address Lisa Gray's point, it appears that no one is paying for this magazine yet.

You know, the same numb people who say "you don't have to buy the magazine" are probably the same ones who said "you can change the channel" about the Super Bowl.

And they likely share one other thing in common - as does the uncaring blonde talking head (wish I caught her name) - they have ni children either.

Free speech also does not give you the right to drag another... person, country, university... reputation down. Will this magazine prominently feature "Harvard" on it? While the pics won't be taken _in_ campus buildings, will they be taken _on_ campus grounds?

Yes, a group of numb humans have the right to force their lack of ideals on me. (You might disagree with that last statement but it holds just as much validity as your statements about how this is somehow connected to free speech as defined in the Constitution 220 years ago.) But those same numb humans also sought and received approval from CCL. So who is more dumb?

You know, the same numb people who say "you don't have to buy the magazine" are probably the same ones who said "you can change the channel" about the Super Bowl.

While the pics won't be taken _in_ campus buildings, will they be taken _on_ campus grounds?

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that, this very moment, there is a nude model posing for an art class somewhere on Harvard's campus. This is not particularly different.

Yes, a group of numb humans have the right to force their lack of ideals on me...But those same numb humans also sought and received approval from CCL. So who is more dumb?

This is really making a mountain out of a molehill. I could get into issues that actually should be discussed, but I'm 99% sure that most of us come to this site to read about and discuss baseball, not politics. I know I do.

This type of magazine and porn in general *does* effect a person. I used to be there. I used to be obsessed with thinking about porn and when the next time I would have a chance to view porn. I could not look at a woman without thinking about her sexually. Any obsession is NOT healthy. Porn is very strong in that way.

It's hard to imagine going to school to learn to be the next Larry Flynt.

Student photos of naked bodies isn't pornography, or don't people see a profound difference between the photos in Hustler and, say, those of Helmut Newton?

Calling it pornography immediately turns this into an emotionally loaded issue. It's the incorrect use of that word that's created a situation out of nothing.

Students have, for years, taken nude photos of other students for photography classes, and produced erotic literature and poetry, all under the guidance of professors and with the full knowledge of the school. Because those areas have more artistic credibility today, and in theory the world has opened up a bit (hah, guess not), it makes perfect sense for the school to formally acknowledge these art forms.

Very conservative families concerned about their adult kids being exposed to certain behavior should consider either not sending their kids to college at all, or only to religious schools that match their belief systems. Colleges everywhere--including Harvard--are full of drugs, alcohol, and sex; a little bit of nudity and erotica should be the least of their concerns.

And saying Harvard is sanctioning the exploitation of individuals is really out there, since we are talking about people that give their consent. But if that's how you truly think, you should be calling for the end of college athletics, because you can make a perfectly valid argument that they truly are all about the "exploitation of individuals."

(And I'd personally be more embarassed to be an alumnus over the various hazing and binge drinking problems that come out of Harvard, and most other schools. Talk about exploitation and such.)

Where talking at the minimum Playboy. The articles in H Bomb are sex-related. Plain and simple, it is a sex mag. You may not like the word "porn", but the purpose of the nude undergrads is so people can't lust after them. You can say it is to "admire" the human body, but that is just euphemism.

Respectfully,
Loogy

"The articles in H Bomb are sex-related. Plain and simple, it is a sex mag. You may not like the word "porn", but the purpose of the nude undergrads is so people can't lust after them. "

If anything related to sex is pornography, and all nude photos are created to inspire lust, that says more about you than it does the intent of the creators.

While everyone likes looking at attractive people, not all nude photography is of beautiful, perfect people. And I'm willing to guess that in a student-run publication, you'll see a lot more deep-focus, high-contrast black & white photography as opposed to soft-lighting Playboy airbrushed stuff.

And since when did lust become a bad thing? I'd rather people be lusting over co-eds in photos than repressing those feelings to the point where they do something truly awful.

Their is no guaranteed right to free speech in a private institution

Two points in response to Dave's post:
1. Harvard has already said that H-Bomb will not be allowed to use Harvard buildings or likenesses in the magazine. So that should assuage those concerns.
2. I don't see where the concern for the "children" comes from. I hate to say this, but your 17 year old freshman daughter at Harvard may have seen porn before. In fact, given what Maxim, the NFL, and MTV look like, I'm sure she's seen porn before. You're not protecting "children" here, you're trying to protect budding adults who are going to come into contact with this sooner or later.

Freedom of speech is protected on University campuses, in some respects, more so than in any other arena. Your children are exposed to all sorts of insidious ideas and concepts in college: communism, facsism, sexism, racism...the ugly history and current status of our culture is on full display in college. They get to read and say things they otherwise wouldn't be able to do outside the insular confines of college. Censoring some stupid magazine will do nothing to protect the innocence of your "child" from the awfulness of our world.
You have every right in the world to be offended by this. I'm offended by it. But look the other way. Ignore it. And if you don't like tuition dollars supporting it, let the students decide to vote in a new student government who will distribute their money differently.

Harvard is far too self-congratulatory and self-satisfied for its own good. Why must it be held out as some kind of mythical, magical place? There are plenty of schools where you can get a comparable, in some cases better, education. The old-boy, rich family network here is still palpable and it's really silly. Screw 'em. Let the kids strip if they want. Any other school would do it. Harvard is special, but not THAT special.

>>>To the editors:
Yesterday’s article about the upcoming magazine, H Bomb, misrepresented the goals of our organization (News, “Committee Approves Porn Magazine,” Feb. 11).

H Bomb is not porn. As stated in our proposal to the Committee on College Life (CCL), which was readily available to anyone interested, it is a literary arts magazine about sex and sexual issues at Harvard. It will contain fiction, features, poetry, and art. >>>

By any other name....

You should all see the laughs that can be heard all over Europe, from Ireland to Greece, at America's overreaction to one boob on the screen during the Super Bowl. The whole Europe sees America as a bunch of prude hypocrites who have no problem with owning a semi-automatic Uzi (and using it!) but go bananas over seeing nudity on TV. Here in Spain we see boobs on commercials at 3pm and there's not even the smallest blip in the news.

And this is the same. People at Harvard are adults and they should be able to have a porn magazine if they so choose. What's the difference between having a Harvard nude students magazine and buying the "Girls of the ACC" Playboy october special?

Besides, and this is no joke, I know what I am talking about because I teach at a university and have very attractive 18-year old students, don't you think that some of those members of the Committee on College Life were secretly relishing the possibility of seeing some of their students naked? It is a common conversation subject among faculty, how good their students look. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as they just comment privately. You don't think some members of the faculty will actually enjoy this magazine? And why not? This is a consenting adult willingly posing nude and another one liking it. Who cares if they are a Harvard student and professor?

Come on. There's nothing wrong with sex. Sex will be part of our lives want it or not. So why hide it? When will America realize that?

John, you are quite right. A boob on commercial television created a much bigger _relative_ stir than other things that ALSO should. My point being, two wrongs do not make a right. Just because there are way too many violent acts being shown at inappropriate times on commercial television doesn't make showing a boob - which never would have passed by uncencored on commercial television - any more proper.

It was wrong. It was against FCC regulations. It is something open for being fined. Anyone who says otherwise should read the FCC regulations.

Am I a prude because I desire to not have my 7 year old boy exposed to a naked boob and several commercials for male enhancement advertisements when all I expected was to watch a championship professional football game? Nope. THe game was not aired on cable or PPV. There's a time and place for everything - and this was clearly way over the line.

Sorry, but I prefer to explain to my son what love and sexual relations are in a better context than a football game.

As for this Harvard stuff.... my only points were that (a) while students have rights to do anything they wish, any approval that appears like the university officially backs this is something much different, (b) other non-consenting alumni and students also have a right to not support this, and (c) anything done on private property - in this case university grounds - are in fact being done under the approval of the university irregardless of being inddors or outdoors. Your right to pose and/or produce nude pictures ends at my front door... at which point I have a right to say I don't want it. That right includes saying I don't want to support it, and that I don't want your right to view and/or produce it shoved forcefully in my face. (Yep, it goes right back to that innocent naked boob that I never had a chance to turn the channel because Timberlake/Jackson decided their rights to expose it were more important.)

I apologize for overreacting in my earlier comments. I hope this more reasoned comment makes my valid points of argument clearer.

Finally, let's get back to the real matter at hand.... as a Tribe fan (hey, let me interject I have no problem with Tadano's self-admitted youthful antics!) this winter has been a very long slow one. Bring on ST!

Dave,

Ignore the folks who are making this a 'free speech' issue. It's not, and anyone with half a brain knows it. It's a constitutional matter if the government tries to censor the magazine, but otherwise the 1st Amendment doesn't come into it.

The students have the right to publish a porn mag if they wish. The University has a right to sponsor it, but it doesn't have to do so. And you have every right to say that an institution of higher learning is idiotic, shameful, and ridiculous for not shutting this down. And of course, you're probably right.

Dave,

Can you tell me what "irregardless" means, because I am a little confused. I didn't know that was a word, actually. Does it mean the opposite of "regardless"? Help me out here, I got nothing.

Note to self: when trying to be clever, double check the spelling of your own name before clicking "Post".
Also, Dave, again: Didn't your kids see boobs when they were little babies? I know I did. Never got over it, really.

Hey David: What's the difference between a Vassar grad (me) and a Harvard grad (you)?

I can correctly spell the name of your institution.

It's not V-A-S-S-E-R. That's the name of some hillbilly autoracer or something.

I'm just messing with you. I haven't seen these magazines, but I'm skeptical that they're really "pornographic." Larry Flynt is hiring these people to pose nude. They're doing it because they want to. Perhaps it's exhibitionism, but I don't see how it's exploitation.

Who do you think came up with this idea, anyway? I'd bet anything it was a bunch of girls, not a bunch of guys. Exploitation my ass.