FINE ARTS' LOSS

The Fine Arts Department seems to have irrevocably decided that it does not want men with Professor Robin Feild's approach to the teaching of art. In spite of the impression which has been given that it would rather cut its own arm off than lose him if it were not for personal and administrative considerations, the issue clearly goes beyond these and raises the question of the department's general attitude toward the teaching of this subject. To this question no complete and dogmatic answer can be given which would invalidate its entire function. The department is highly esteemed in this country and abroad for its sound scholarship and within the University it adequately provides instruction in that cultural curiosity, but, perhaps, necessity-"appreciation."

The Teachers' Union in its tactful statement last night did not express an opinion on "matters of departmental competence"-presumably to decide on the qualifications of its staff members. But it did bring into the open an issue which has plagued the University in the past and which will continue to as long as its theory and practice of academic tenure remains unchanged. It is the spectacle of the great, impersonal university playing with the lives of its hirelings, using them as long as they are useful to it and discarding them unsystematically. Up to a point this rigorous competition is productive of quality, but as it stands now it is not efficient enough to outweigh its moral undesirability.

Some excuse can be made for the Fine Arts Department action in dismissing Feild in that it must use the University's tenure system. But Feild was unique in his attitude toward the subject which he taught, which is shown by his great popularity, and the "progressive" courses he gave evidently filled a need in a moribund department, out of touch with present realities. It is doubtful if his shoes will be filled and his work continued since the sun withered him in this soil and showed it was barren. A good idea and a good man are lost to Harvard.