Faculty Politics and the Doty Committee: Consensus or Debate?

On a Tuesday late in October, a number of prominent men will gather in a high-ceilinged chamber, lit with chandeliers and decorated with portraits of Presidents, to consider a piece of legislation which affects the fundamental assumptions of their society and which has its most profound implications for a younger generation.

The setting is the Faculty Room in University Hall, the Presidents are of Harvard, and the "bill" is the Doty Report on General Education. But the implied analogy to the Congress of the United States is well-founded.

At its monthly meeting, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences--in essence a federal body--will try to secure for all members of the college certain benefits which each of its departments cannot provide separately, thereby renewing a conflict between the college and the departments which is older than the Federal-state rivalry.

Ford Optimistic

Whether the Faculty will divide sharply over the report or easily reach a consensus is, however, not entirely certain at the moment. Franklin Ford, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, is one who is optimistic; he foresees little political infighting and expects the report to pass with only a few modifications or amendments. Ford, whose initial concern over the disarray of undergraduate education led to the formation of the Doty Committee, will chair the Faculty meeting and is one of the most influential supporters of the report. ("Its his baby now," said one member of the special committee.) If all goes well in Ford's view, it will take two years for the report to pass through five board stages which preceed its inauguration as a fully implemented Harvard program.

First, beginning in early October, Ford will ask the department chairmen to evaluate the report on relatively narrow grounds; how does it affect their own domain? By seeking the counsel of the department heads first, Ford will be able to anticipate the significant objections and qualifications of the report's most likely critics.

Second, at the October Faculty meeting, Paul M. Doty, professor of Chemistry, will be first on the docket and will present the opening argument for his committee's report. Debate will follow. Ford hopes that at this time (or at the beginning of the November meeting) the Faculty will give the report a vote of confidence by approving it in broad outline and discharging the Doty Committee.

Third, during November and December the Faculty will go through the report in detail, modifying or amending specific sections. By the Christmas recess their work could be finished, and the report adopted.

Fourth, it will then go to the Committee on Educational Policy for drafting into final legislation. The CEP, in conjunction with members of the Doty Committee, will try to reconcile Faculty suggestions with the original language of the report. By mid-winter, the Faculty will vote on the report in final form, amending or repealing those sections of The Rules Relating to College Studies concerned with Gen. Ed.

Fifth, if the report is passed, President Pusey will appoint a new Committee on General Education on the recommendation of Dean Ford. Together with the registrar the committee will begin the process of actually shaping the new program; creating new courses, staffing and scheduling them--all to be ready for the Class of 1970.

Although it is unlikely that the Doty report will be adopted and implemented quite so smoothly, it is also unlikely that there will be massive changes. At the very least, the Doty Committee has shown the present situation to be untenable. One of the best defenses against great alterations in the report is that no one will want to form a new committee and begin another search for alternatives.

Aims Come First

Clearly, if there is to be a debate over General Education, however "great" or limited, it will have to come during the Fall Faculty meetings. Because the heart of the report is in the substantive material--changes in distribution rules and rearming the administrative structure, Dean Ford's desire for an early vote of confidence on broad issues may be frustrated. Nonetheless, Ford will insist that the Faculty consider the report first in terms of the broad aims and needs it outlines, then in terms of the assumptions and operating rules of the new program, and finally in terms of administrative change.

What arguments in opposition to the report or in favor of modifying it can be expected in the three potential areas of controversy?

AIMS OF GEN.ED.--Most broadly, the question the report asks here and answers in the affirmative is should there be General Education at all? Is there a need for some type of education in the college to counter the specialization of the departments? "In summary form," says the report, "it is the task of General Education 1) to give the student an appreciation of the civilization of which he is a part, 2) to make him aware of different fields of knowledge and methods of inquiry and 3) to encourage a broader view of the potentialities and limitations of his own speciality." But this is a battle that was fought twenty years ago with the writing of the Redbook.

"Rocking the Boat"

Few if any Faculty members will oppose this broad conception, will maintain that departmental education is solely adequate for a liberal education. A more substantial number may insist on "not rocking the boat" and suggest that the present program adequately attains these goals, and argue that a further expenditure of time on Gen Ed isn't worth the trouble. Still others may want to harken back to the Redbook and reaffirm even more strongly a faith in the need for training students in the philosophy and history of Western Civilization.

But it is not in the nature of the report, nor is the mood of the Faculty expansive enough, to spend much time on generalities.

THE REFORMULATION OF GENERAL EDUCATION--Instead debate will center here and over Administrative problems since the Doty report is not so much a philosphical document as a pragmatic one, asks not whether General Education is a good think for democratic society, but whether it can be made better at Harvard.

To make Gen. Ed. better at Harvard, the Doty Committee proposed three "organizing ideas of reformulation." All three will likely be contested to some degree.

1. According to the report, the new program "should include important areas of knowledge not adequately presented in the present program." This means replacing the tripartite division with two areas, Sciences and Humanities, including the "systematic" social sciences under Science, and increasing the science load of undergraduates from 1/16 to 1/8 of their course work in college.

Snow Right?

Some faculty members may oppose the new division on the grounds that it "proves C.P. Snow right." Although the division of the two cultures is only administrative, they fear that it will create an "epistemological gap" with the resulting failure of communication.

Somewhat in the same vein, certain members of the "behaviorial sciences" may balk at being placed in the Science category since they emphasize humanistic or historical threads of their disciplines.

2. A second "organizing idea" is "to introduce a greater variety of course offerings accommodating various levels of preparation." Although many other colleges believe in the homogeneity of an entering class, the Harvard experience has proved otherwise. Few will object to a recognition that the first course at college need not be uniform. But some will say that if certain freshmen are coming so well-prepared why bother to create special General Education courses for them.

Depth Education

3. The third task of reformulation is to "provide course sequences so that the option to pursue certain interests in greater depth could be available." This suggestion will bring the charge, one of the most serious facing the report, that it is not the role of General Education to provide such education in depth. That role is for the departments.

Moreover, the proliferation of Gen Ed courses provides ammunition for those who contend that General Education has become an elaborate system of distribution requirements, that requiring students to take a certain number of departmental courses outside their own field would fulfill the ideals of General Education as formulated now.

ADMINISTRATIVE REARMAMENT--Whereas opposition to other sections of the Doty Report appears, as of now, to be fragmented and amorphous, over this section the lines of battle are more clearly drawn. The departments are challenged more directly, and it seems quite possible that all three proposals of the report in this area may be modified.

First, the Doty Report asks that a committee on General Education, composed of permanent faculty members and chaired by the Dean of the Faculty, be charged with operating responsibility for the program and all other elements of non-departmental education.

Many members of the Faculty are sympathetic with the need to give the Gen Ed Committee more muscle; its lack of power is one of the obvious weaknesses of the present system. Still, many may be wary of having the Dean of the Faculty head the committee, since he also has paramount responsibility for administering and coordinating the various departments.

Athough he has stated his support of the report, Dean Ford is, in fact, uneasy about assuming the Chairmanship of the Gen Ed Committee. He understands that people could be concerned about "University Hall running the whole show." And, more importantly, he feels there is a potential conflict of interest; as head of Gen Ed he would conceivably have to compete with men--the department chairmen--whom he is supposed to supervise.

Second, the report asks that the departments be the "principal means by which the Faculty responsibility for General Education is discharged." This would mean, suggests the report, that each department contribute 10 per cent of the time its faculty spends in undergraduate teaching to the new program.

Not only will the concept of a 10 per cent contribution require more complete definition (how many professors, assistant professors, section men etc., go into the formula), but departments who aren't taxed too heavily now in terms of personnel lent to Gen Ed may oppose what suddenly seems like a rather severe burden. Mathematics, Government, Economics, and the sciences all may share this view.

Third, the report proposes that in recognition of the time and professional risks involved in teaching Gen Ed, a system of incentives should be established to attract faculty participation, specifically, more liberal requirements for sabbaticals.

Departments may oppose this suggestion because it will draw professors away from teaching in middle level courses. In addition, many may feel that such provisions are simply superfluous; if something is worth doing one needn't be bribed.

Given the variety of possible objections to the report, one may ask, which ones will spark sufficient controversy to cause significant amendments? At the moment, except for those concerning the administrative reorganization, the answer is, probably none.

This is not to suggest that there is a consensus for the Doty Report. Some think it says too little, some too much; some think it's gone too fast, some too slow; some think its too liberal, some too conservative. But it will be difficult for those who aren't really happy with the report to find a flag around which they can rally.

More important, the report already has a good deal of momentum. The Doty Committee took two years and much pain to arrive at unanimity. The Committee on Educational Policy approved the report 8-1, and the one dissenting member, Frank H. Westheimer, Morris Loeb Professor of Chemistry, will be doing research this fall and doesn't plan to oppose the legislation actively. The Dean of the Facuty favors the report. Besides, the advocates are operating in something of a power vacuum; very few individual professors who have not already had a hand in the report care enough about General Education to thing through substantial amendments and lobby for their passage.

Only highly motivated departments pose a concerted threat to the work of the Doty Committee. And even departments rarely vote as a bloc. Certainly, if this happens it will be because the individuals in a particular department have arrived at the same conclusion, not because a department chairman has decreed it. "No one is going to be a party boss in this," suggests Franklin Ford. Also, faculty votes are noted for their lack of parochialism.

In short, there may be no great consensus for the report, but there will probably not be a great debate. What controversy there is will most likely center around the changes in administrative structure not the means and ends of General Education. And even there, it is likely that accommodation within the broad guidelines of the report will be reached between the college and dissident departments.

Perhaps one member of the Doty Committee hit on one key difference between the present report and the Redbook, one which also reflects a contrast in tone and ambition. As he said, "That may have had a greater national impact, but we will probably get most of ours passed.