GRADING RESOLUTION

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I find myself puzzled by much of what I hear about the grading of Spring Term courses. It is said. for instance, that the faculty resolution is ambiguous. There is some confusion in reference here, for the faculty resolution also exists in an expanded avatar which gives numbered alternatives for students and faculty. Of the two documents the latter is considerably more confusing (and, in fact, has been amended, which adds to the confusion) and it is unfortunate that the university has chosen to circulate it rather than the original resolution. Here is the opening of the faculty resolution: "Each instructor shall allow students the option. . . ." The second sentence concludes: "if any student so requests by May 19, that student shall be graded by the instructor on a pass-fail basis." There is no trace of this "shall" in the second document, where it has been reduced to "may."

It seems clear to me that a disinterested reading of the faculty resolution gives students choices which they have been denied in many courses. Surely the spirit of the resolution is clear: it requires the faculty to evaluate students on the work they have done so far. If the student has two B's. he gets a B. If a D and a B. he gets a C, or a pass. It he requests a pass. he gets it (unless he is part of what must be a tiny group of Harvard students who fail courses). The resolution does not, it seems to me, address itself to the completion of course requirements.

If, then. the spirit of the resolution is tolerably clear, it is also clear that many faculty members have chosen to ignore it. This, of course, is part of a Harvard tradition of respect for individual professional judgments, but it makes the business of faculty resolutions seem a rather silly gesture. Certainly intellectual clarity, if nothing else, would be served if those who have so chosen would frankly announce that they are ignoring the faculty resolution.Teaching Fellow in English