Advanced Standing Bureaucratic Bungling

MOST OF US are vaguely aware that the Harvard bureaucracy is a barely manageable machine that consists of many unwieldy and unoiled parts. But rarely does the opportunity arise to observe Harvard's bureaucratic failure first-hand, particularly the bitter behind-the-scenes fighting which often takes place. The Advanced Standing director, has demonstrated bureaucratic irresponsibility and has created an ongoing bureaucratic battle between his office and the Registrar.

Advanced Standing students who are beginning their third year of residence found an unpleasant surprise buried in their reams of registration literature last week-a letter from David A. Harnett, director of Advanced Standing, stating an apparently new rule: "It is expected Advanced Standing students will ordinarily have completed all their A.B. degree requirements (concentration, General Education, etc.) by the end of their sixth term in residence." Attached to the letter was a questionnaire asking for detailed information on each student's progress in fulfilling Gen Ed and departmental requirements.

Harnett himself is beginning his second year as director of the Advanced Standing office. Christopher Wadsworth, the former Director who has since left Harvard, had never mentioned any ruling to this effect. According to Wadsworth, any Advanced Standing student could have postponed until his fourth year as many degree requirements as he wished. When Harnett was questioned on this change in policy, he replied glibly, "It's not a new ruling. It's always been there. Wadsworth never paid any attention to it but we've [I've] fished it out and think it's important."

If one reads closely the 1969-70 (pre-Harnett) edition of the Advanced Standing pamphlet, one might argue that the fish which Harnett caught does in fact exist. The important issue is that even if this fish was once alive, in practice it has long been dead. Wadsworth, as Harnett freely admitted, never took note of it. Instead, Wadsworth frequently encouraged Advanced Standing students to take two sophomore, two junior, or two senior years and thus remain at Harvard for a fourth year of academic flexibility. Harnett, on the other hand, seems bent on pushing students into graduate school work in their fourth year, even if they do not want it. To formalize his own outlook on the matter, he subtly revised the Advanced Standing pamphlet. The pre-Harnett edition states, "New sophomores are free to complete the requirements for a degree in three years." Harnett's 1970-71 pamphlet states instead that "new sophomores are expected to complete the requirements for a degree in three years."

THE ISSUE becomes whether an administrator taking over an office such as Advanced Standing can by himself drastically reinterpret the office's regulations. Harnett's action is certainly disfunctional to those trying to create an atmosphere of genuine student-Faculty-administration cooperation and consultation. Harnett did not ask the Faculty to debate his reinterpretation. And obviously, Harnett did not take upper-class Advanced Standing students into consideration, many of whom agreed to sign the Advanced Standing contract two or more years ago, with a very different idea of what was expected of them.

One might hope that Harnett would have at least have informed his boss, Dean May, of the change. When asked Wednesday about Harnett's reinterpretation, May said, "This is the first I have ever heard of it." May is not only Harnett's boss, but actually reappointed Harnett to his post when he became dean of the College.

We all know that bureaucratic regulations are often not taken seriously unless they can be enforced. When Harnett was asked who would enforce the directive-that Advanced Standing students complete all their A.B. degree requirements by the end of their sixth term in residence-he said that this responsibility would lie with the Registrar's Office. Harnett failed to say, however, that he did not inform the Registrar of his reinterpretation. Miss Marion Belliveau, associate registrar, said Wednesday that "what they want to do over in the Advanced Standing office to enforce this would certainly be entirely up to them." Harnett, in point of fact, has no authority to force students to complete their degree requirements in three years.

When Harnett's letter to third-year Advanced Standing students was shown to another high official in the Registrar's office, she characterized Harnett's actions as "high-handed" and said, "I thought the Advanced Standing program was set up to give students flexibility. The whole tone of the letter tries to take away this flexibility and builds up tremendous pressure on you to hurry up and get through. "She emphasized that Harnett's letter and his relation with the Registrar's Office "is now a very delicate matter. It was an effort on his part to be helpful but it assumes more authority than he has."

This same official, who asked not to be identified, suggested that Advanced Standing students ignore Harnett's questionnaire. The question she objected to most, which she said characterized his whole attitude, reads, "Among those whose plans are still unknown, please, explain what the contingency is. The more that I know about the particular problems you are facing, the easier it will be for me to keep a flexible date for your final [graduation] commitment." She emphasized that "the responsibility for the statement about graduation lies with the Registrar." So the battle between these two bureaucratic offices continues unresolved.

The question we now face is the future status of Advanced Standing. Dean May said that he is going to ask each academic department to carry out a broad review of Advanced Standing policy. Students should insist on representation for these departmental review committees. In general, it might be wise for undergraduates to make sure that no Harvard administrator single-handedly makes detrimental changes in any undergraduate program.