The Brain Drain

The Charles Warren Center for Studies in American History was established last month to "provide superior conditions for research and teaching." But the organization of the center, as outlined by Oscar Handlin, its newly-appointed director, makes it evident that University officials have expended far more energy in planning the center's libraries and fellowship programs than in determining how the center will affect undergraduate education. That is certainly contrary to the wishes of the late legal historian for whom the center is named.

Twenty-five years ago, Charles Warren '95, chaired the Overseers' Visiting Committee on the History Department and was shocked to find that Harvard students were apathetic about American history and that Harvard professors taught very few courses in the field. His widow's $7 million bequest could change that, but the first tentative plans for the administration of the funds indicate that it will not.

Handlin has indicated that the number of instructorships and assistant professorships in American History will be increased by the bequest. These young post-doctoral students will not only staff courses taught by senior faculty members but will also for the first time be able to offer courses of their own. This would seem to satisfy even Charles Warren, but it is doubtful that appointing junior faculty can solve the History Department's major problem: the History Department, among others, recently has had great difficulty retaining junior faculty members until their appointments expire.

There is no evidence that even the inducement of a fellowship at the new center and the negligible salary increases announced last week will offset the lucrative salaries, light teaching loads, and promise of earlier tenure appointments offered to Harvard junior faculty members by other universities. Most young instructors leave Harvard because staying is pointless--and that is unchanged by the Warren Center. Harvard can be a dead end for an aspiring academician--there are already just too many good people competing for two few senior posts. Increasing the number of non-tenured faculty members only means there will be more competing for those few positions.

A wiser use of the Warren bequest--and one more in keeping with Charles Warren's interests--would be to improve the quality as well as the range of instruction in American history by endowing a few new professorships instead of hiring many new instructors. Presumably courses taught by professors would be better than courses taught by instructors. The greater chances for promotion might induce bright young scholars to remain here as well.

The expanded research fellowship program at the center, although it is a lure for post-graduates, may also provide a convenient back exit for professors who want to ignore teaching responsibilities and concentrate on research. Professors will be eligible to apply for grants to support study away from the University--and consequently will be offering fewer courses.

The Warren Center, far from improving undergraduate education, may indeed only weaken the already short-handed staff in American history. The provisions for the use of the bequests do not improve the dismal tenure prospects confronting the junior faculty; the History Department can only expect to go losing its best men before their terms expire. And the possibility of full professors' spending less of their time teaching is even more alarming to those of us who care how American history is taught.