Determinism

THE FACULTY COUNCIL'S recent recommendation that the Faculty vote to offer Nat Sci 36, "Biological Determinism," solely on a credit/non-credit basis represents a clear attempt to force professors to grade courses more strictly. If the recommendation is passed, students will be unable to take Nat Sci 36 to fill their General Education requirements. It is a course with obvious political content. But because its instructors do not follow the kind of grading practices the Faculty Council wishes to see enforced, a radical perspective on biological determinism will be virtually eliminated from the University's course offerings.

Richard C. Lewontin '50, Agassiz Professor of Zoology, and Stephen J. Gould, professor of Biology, have guaranteed any student who turns in a ten page paper at least a B, while longer papers have been graded B or above, based on content. Gould says he and Lewontin have always wanted to give the course credit/non-credit, but in that case it could not be offered within Gen Ed.

If accepted, the Faculty Council's recommendation will force Nat Sci 36 out of Gen Ed. Moreover, it is unlikely, given the new honors standards that restrict the number of pass/fail courses a student is likely to take, that many students will take Nat Sci 36. Lewontin and Gould have tried to cut down competition in their course so that students will work out of interest rather than for grades. Their system is certainly fairer to the student than that of Harvey Mansfield Jr., chairman of the Government Department, who recently told tutors in the department to cut down the number of A's they give.

There are a number of courses on biological determinism in the course catalogue, but most of them take a very different view of the subject matter than that of Lewontin and Gould. Bernard C. Davis offers Nat Sci 37, "Evolution, Genetics and Society," with the specific intent of counteracting their radical perspective. Whether or not it was the Faculty Council's intent, by objecting to Lewontin and Gould's grading policies, the council could remove all but the conservative view of people like Davis, who believe genetic heritage is probably a factor in determining intelligence.

Lewontin and Gould should be applauded for their decision to ease pressures on students. More importantly, the Gen Ed Committee should not eliminate a radical view of biological determinism from its curriculum. This is an important controversy in the sciences, with serious social implications, and the University should not limit students to a one-sided, reactionary view.