BUDGET CUT WILL THREATEN TUTORIAL, COUNCIL PREDICTS

Severe curtailment of the tutorial system will be the chief consequence of the University's declared ten per cent budget cut, according to a Student Council report released last night. Various methods of alleviating the effect were suggested by the Council, and it was urged that the whole question be taken up in a Faculty meeting.

Prepared by the Council's new Committee on Tenure and Curriculum, the report was backed up by detailed investigations of the budget reductions in the 21 largest Departments. Failure to rehire younger men in many fields, it was pointed out, will result in "increasing tutor's loads, leaning toward group rather than individual tutorial, stiffening the requirements for Plan A, and further restricting the tutorial of Plan B students."

"Easing the Strain"

Among the proposals for "easing the strain" were:

(1.) A special Inter-Departmental fund to relieve the duress of Departments hit hardest by the cut. "Two or three additional men in these Departments would make a lot of difference," the report said.

(2.) Limited and temporary salary cuts in Departments where "there is any unanimity of opinion as to cutting salaries rather than materially impair teaching." The University's traditional policy has been to attract brilliant but high-priced men from lucrative professions by paying for them liberally; hence salary cuts were banned in the present situation.

(3.) Deficit financing and digging into capital for the first year at least, with the possibility of larger income from war-time business activity, and a steadier enrollment from a more "orderly" government draft policy.

(4.) Federal funds in return for University facilities and men being used by Washington and a reduction of salaries for Faculty members who because of work in defense cannot carry a full teaching load.

(5.) Emergency appeals to Alumni and friends, a means already being utilized by some Departments.

(6.) Transfer of some emphasis and funds from the Graduate Schools to the College, since "the draft will cause a much greater drop in graduate than undergraduate ranks, so that logically the graduate departments would operate on correspondingly smaller budgets."

Several of these methods had been earlier suggested by the Teachers' Union and the Student Union.

Reductions in some Departments were achieved by weeding out "luxury" expenses, or by special circumstances such as an ordinary leave of absence for a full professor. But the general picture, the report asserted, was that younger members--section men, assistants, and teaching fellows--were being dropped in large numbers.

In its emphasis on the danger to tutor- ial the Council said that the tutorial system was "a symbol, and at Harvard at least, the focal point, of a liberal education," the long-run social values of which should not be dismissed "as nonessentials and luxuries, to be dispensed with in an emergency."

The members of the Committee on Tenure and Curriculum, all of the class of '42, are as follows:

Judson T. Shaplin, Anthropology; Benjamin H. Landing, Jr., Biology; Robert A. Keller, Bio-Chemistry; Melvin Fields, Jr., Chemistry; Howard C. Bennett, Jr., Classics; Eli Goldston. Economics; William F. Rottschaefer, Engineering Sciences; Marvin G. Barrett, English; Thomas B. A. Godfrey, Fine Arts; Benjamin F. Whitehill, Geological Sciences.

The others are: Roger C. Henselman, Government; John M. Ballantine, History; Gabriel Jackson, History and Literature; David W. Rockwell, Literature; Lindley J. Burton, Mathematics; Paul Jaretzki, Music; Harry D. Feltenstein, Jr., Philosophy; H. Gordon Voorhies, Physics; John H. Wulsin, Psychology; David B. Williams, Romance Languages; Donald C. Wetmore, Sociology; Eugene D. Keith, chairman