Ford Cites Opposition To Doty Group's Report

The major objections to the Doty Committee's report may well be based on its proposals to induce departments and individual Faculty members to devote more teaching time to the General Education Program, Dean Ford said late last week.

Many departments, History, English, and the Classics, for example, already feel they are devoting ten per cent of their undergraduate teaching time to the Gen Ed courses, Ford said, while others, such as Economics, would find it very difficult to do so.

Ford emphasized, however, the fact that the Doty Committee's ten per cent figure was "just a rule of thumb."

These considerations were not behind the objections of the one Committee on Educational Policy member who refused to approve the report, however.

Frank H. Westheimer, Morris Loeb Professor of Chemistry, the dissident CEP member, said yesterday that "the introduction to the Doty Report shows that neither the Student Body nor the Faculty is very enthusiastic about General Education at Harvard, and this after an extensive trial.

"Therefore it seems to me we should not try to repair the structure but should rather look for an alternative method of achieving our educational objectives."

Other Faculty reaction to the report was more favorable.

William Alfred, professor of English, saw it as a mandate for Gen Ed instructors "to be more adventurous." "I feel as though I can bring in more people to do things on the stage," he added.

Alfred also expressed approval of the proposed redivision of Gen Ed courses, which would classify history as a "Humanity." "Somebody like Gibbon ought to be part of English literature," he said.

David Riesman '31, Henry Ford II Professor of the Social Sciences, cited the emphasis on the creative arts and non-Western cultures as one of the most promising features of the report.

He added, however, that his own field, Social Relations, was caught on the line in the new division between "Sciences" and "Humanities."

His own course would not be affected, he said, since it would probably be classified in the third category of "Electives." But the choice would be difficult for many people in the behavioral sciences, he said, who have closer ties to history, philosophy, government, or literature than to the sciences.

Despite this difficulty, the report was still a "great creation, Riesman added.

Ford also stated that some Faculty members objected to the provisions for accelerated sabbatical credit and reduced teaching loads for Gen. Ed instructors, since, they felt, any program "worth its salt" would not need such inducements to attract sufficient teachers.

The report will be discussed within the departments this Spring, or next Fall Ford said, adding that he hopes the general debate on it can start at the October Faculty meeting.

Votes on essential points of the program could then be taken next Spring, and the following year (1965-66) used by the CEP to get the new program into final shape for Faculty ratification.

If this schedule can be maintained, Ford said, the new program may be required of members of the Class of 1970