Mr. Ardery Answers His Nieman Fellow Critics

Above are three of seven letters received by the CRIMSON deploring my article of Monday, February 7, on the Nieman Fellowship program. All were written by Fellows in this year's class. The other letters are not reprinted because there is not enough space.

I can well understand how dedicated journalists, chafing for a year at the academic bit, would welcome the opportunity provided by the article to exercise their journalistic libidos. That, I presume, accounts for the number and the length of the letter. It is the tone that is surprising. The reason for such vituperation escapes me.

Mr. Carter suggests that I read the reports filed by past Nieman classes the reports selected by Louis Lyons and reprinted in book form as The Nieman Fellows Report, and I can only say that for the most part (I cited Robert Manning's report as an exception) they are undistinguished and almost indistinguishable, listing time and again the same courses and mentioning few if any non-academic experiences.

I do not know which professors have conducted Nieman seminars. As the article states, Dwight Sargent, Curator of the Nieman Fellowships, said that "60 to 80 per cent...are in the field of public affairs."

That the Nieman Fellows are unfamiliar with the course offerings until they begin the fall term is indeed a shame. Those without Robert Maynard's foresight and initiative will continue to stumble around until the Nieman office provides all Fellows with a critique of course similar to the one that Maynard sought out on his own.

Mr. Carter writes that I have unjustly attributed an aura of "fraternal complacency" to some Nieman classes during the Lyon's tenure as curator. For a description of the program under Lyon's leadership I was forced to rely on his two books for information. When I requested an interview he declined, telling me that "What I have to say is in my books." In Reporting the News, Lyons pictures the Fellows primarily as members of a prestigious organization, and secondarily as independent scholars. I took Lyons at his written word when he described the evolution of the Nieman program from "an educational opportunity" to "one of the prized distinctions in Americas journalism."

As for Mr. Maynard, I can understand that his favorable treatment in my article may have ostracized him from the Nieman community. His letter, I presume, brings him comfortably back into the fold.

His comment on "culture shock" distorts--deliberately, I suspect--what I wrote. His second paragraph of critisms is contradicted by Mr. Bass's letter. His third supports my argument, applauding the shapelessness of the Nieman program, but fails to deal with my complaint that the Nieman office could do much more to open Harvard's door.

Mr. Bass's letter is the most intelligent, serious, and substantive of the lot. He makes some valid criticisms of my article. However, I am reluctant to credit the Nieman year with the development of 14 Pulitzer prize-winners, as the program inducts only the best young newspapermen after they are well on their way.