Curriculum-Tenure Committee is Suspended; PBH, WSC Merged

Suspension of the Student Council Committee on Curriculum and Tenure was voted at a Council meeting Wednesday night in the belief that certain action in the near future by the government will render the immediate task of the committee meaningless. This body was one of the largest and most important of the Council committees.

Formed to discuss educational problems at Harvard, the committee on Curriculum and Tenure had been planning to hold meetings through the fall on the subject of a wartime curriculum, but the prospect of a definitive stand from Washington caused the committee chairmen, John M. Blum '43, and Hugh M. Hyde '44, to ask for a suspension of its activities.

Report on Three Terms

Most of the summer was spent by the members of the Committee in the drawing up of a report on the possibility of a symmetrical three term system for Harvard. Although favored by a bare majority of the members, the proposal was not expressly recommended by the committee, which only asked for the extension of the summer term for 14 weeks.

It was carefully stressed in the letter proposing the suspension of the activities of the committee, that this action did not constitute abolition of the group, but merely a period of inactivity until definite news from Washington was received.

Administration Doing its Best

Fearing that their course of action would be regarded in some quarters as the withdrawal of the last student defense of the liberal tradition, the letter to the Council emphasized the fact that "the administration at Harvard, the Faculty and the Dean's Office are doing everything within their power to preserve the liberal tradition within the limits of education in total war."

It was further stressed that Faculty committees were working on the problem, and that they also would have to wait for definite action from Washington until any reports to the student body could be attempted.

The Ames-Jackson report of 1941-42 still "exists as a basis for post-war discussion or possibly for more immediate consideration after the government has acted" the letter pointed out, but "should the Army send men back to College for more training after their induction, we feel that this is primarily a military problem and not within the jurisdiction of this committee."