The Slow Course of History

Last Thursday the History Department effectively destroyed any possibility of reforming its honors tutorial program for the next year or two. It also discredited those observers who had hailed the Department's flexibility and willingness to look critically at existing programs.

Acting Department Chairman Oscar Handlin's decision, on the face of it, may not appear too unreasonable; he simply promised to set up a committee to study proposals advanced by the junior faculty. Unfortunately, Handlin did not announce the names of the members of the committee, nor the time when it would begin to meet. Cynics who slyly predict that the Department will take as little action as possible for as long as possible now have substantial supporting evidence.

It is not unreasonable for the senior faculty to wish to study some of the proposals--a seminar plus a thirty-page paper as an alternative to the senior thesis, a stiffening of honors requirements. There is room for exploration of these possibilities and for disagreement among men of experience and judgment.

There is less excuse for the senior faculty's unwillingness to allow any debate--much less a vote--on any of the proposals at the meeting last Thursday. As a result of this policy, no action was taken on even the one recommendation that has overwhelming support, the revision of the present sophomore tutorial on historiography.

No one can deny that the History Department ought to consider changes in its tutorial program carefully. But carefully is not a synonym of slowly. The Department should begin to study the junior faculty's recommendations immediately. While it prepares to ponder over the proposals, hundreds of students in the University's largest department will be receiving an education that is not as good as it might be.