Let Laissez-faire

HARVARD DRAWS a lot of criticism for its laissez-faire way of taking care of students. But critics sometimes get carried away. There are distinct advantages to an administration that doesn't interfere. The alcohol policy Harvard introduced last year is a perfect example.

It is true that students who do not take the initiative may find themselves on graduation day without ever having had an in-depth conversation with a faculty member or administrator. Although there are opportunities like professors' office hours and resources like the Bureau of Study Counsel or freshman proctors, only particularly motivated students are likely to take advantage of them. Provided a student meets the barest requirements, University officials won't check up on him or her.

The bad side of this arrangement is readily apparent--it's awfully easy for a student to get into serious trouble without anyone noticing. Harvard has a high casualty rate, and the lack of an active advising system certainly contributes to it.

But then there's the good side. Although Harvard's new policy on undergraduate drinking is substantially stricter than previous rules, it is still among the most liberal policies around. House committee officers--not policemen or administrators--check identification at house parties, and unlike many colleges, where policemen confiscate alcohol belonging to underage drinkers, Harvard considers private parties to be just that.

The same laissez-faire philosophy that allows students to go for months without seeing an adviser also permits undergraduates to drink and party in whatever fashion they desire.

The federal government may be hell-bent on preventing people under 21 from consuming alcohol, but Harvard isn't jumping on the bandwagon. College administrators say they designed the alcohol policy because they had to bring Harvard into compliance with the law, not because they had an overwhelming desire to cut down on undergraduate drinking. And officials call the policy a success, despite the fact that the campus is not notably drier.

Provided Harvard can't be accused of fostering law-breaking, officials really don't care what students do in their spare time. And most students are more than ready to take advantage of this freedom.

So before swamping the administration with complaints that it never pays any attention to students, critics should remember this: your adviser may never come knocking on the door to find out what you are up to, but at least you can be sure that University officials won't interrupt your parties.