Say No to the Super-Dean

Four years ago, Harvard witnessed a major changing of the guard when it selected Neil Rudenstine as its new President. This year, another changing of the guard will take place when the Faculty of Arts and Sciences selects a new Dean of Harvard College.

This time, much more is at stake for student interests, because the Dean's office inherently has more face-to-face interaction with undergraduates. And when current Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 steps down at the end of this academic year, students will lose a strong and committed advocate in University Hall.

The Administration is currently considering a modification in the structure of the Dean's office, a decision that will be made sometime during the next week or two. This decision is extremely important because its results will affect the quality of student life and undergraduate education long after our classes leave Harvard. An issue with such large-scale ramifications for students therefore must take into account the ideas and opinions of the students. After a thorough review of the alternatives posed by the administration, I have come to the conclusion that two things are essential in order to secure a structure that best addresses the needs of undergraduates at Harvard.

First, the structure of the Dean's office must maintain one important feature--accessibility. From a student perspective, the so called "Two-Dean Model" will best achieve this end. Second, there should be adequate student representation on the search committee for a new dean.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) is considering changing the organizational structure of the Dean's office. Two major structural alternatives have come to the forefront: (1) the "Two-Dean Structure" and (2) the "Single-Faculty-Dean Structure". Without getting too caught up in the technical aspects of this debate, I should briefly explain these two structures.

The Two-Dean Structure would be a minor variation of the current system. Immediately under the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would be two other deans. The Dean of the College would have responsibility for nonacademic issues such as residential policy, student discipline and extracurricular activities. The Dean for Undergraduate Education would be responsible for the academic side of undergraduate life, curricula and departmental programs.

Under the Single-Faculty-Dean model, both non-academic and academic responsibilities would be consolidated into a larger-than-life "Super-Dean" who would report directly to the Dean of the FAS. Under the Super-Dean would sit the Dean of Students and an Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education. The "go-to" person in University Hall would no longer be the Dean of the College but one of a cadre of assistant deans. Behind the mundane terminology of bureaucratic restructuring lies an important question that cuts directly to the heart of this issue: do we want a dean who is accessible or a dean who is insulated from students by another layer of bureaucracy?

From a student's perspective, the answer to this question is simple: The Administration can ensure that the Dean of the College will remain accessible and accountable to the students --regardless of the choice of Jewett's successor--by choosing the Two-Dean model. Because it is more horizontal than Single-Faculty-Dean, this structure will provide students with a more direct pipeline into the decision-making locus at University Hall. Furthermore, the administrative burden of Super-Dean could ultimately prevent the new Dean from having any direct interaction with students.

As it stands now, Dean Jewett holds weekly office hours and serves as an academic advisor for about 10 students per year. His commitment to undergraduates is largely a function of his personal priorities, but it is partly a function of the structure of his office. If the University goes with the Two-Dean structure, students will continue to have direct access to the Dean's office.

Under the Super-Dean structure, students would be forced to go to Associate Deans with their questions or concerns. Because most decisions are made at the Dean level (Dean of the College and Dean of the FAS), student concerns with regard to policy issues would be diluted by one more level of administrative personnel. Quite simply, students do not want to be shut out!

In addition to the question of accessibility, there are many peripheral issues which point to the superiority of the Two-Dean model. For one, it may be hard to find a Super-Dean who is able to live up to such an ambitious job description. He or she would take over the responsibilities that two people now share.

Because the Two-Dean structure is only a slight modification of the current system, implementation would be much easier. A proven administrator from within or outside the College could move into this position without the major transition that would inevitably occur with the Super-Dean model. Under Super-Dean, there would be large "on the job training" costs to familiarize a faculty member with the administrative aspects of the job.

Advocates for the Single-Faculty-Dean model point that the Two-Dean model forces an artificial separation of student life issues and academic issues. What this position fails to point out is that this separation occurs in the Single- Faculty-Dean model, but at a lower rung of the bureaucratic ladder. In any event, this separation could potentially enhance the effectiveness of the Dean because he or she would be able to concentrate on issues pertinent to undergraduate life and educational development. The Dean for Undergraduate Education would be able to concentrate on academic issues such as the Core, curricular planning and development, and departmental programs. Specialization can bring about effectiveness.

The second major issue involved in the overall debate is that of representation. An issue with so much at stake for students deserves nothing less that equal representation on a joint student-faculty search committee, regardless of which structure is chosen next week.

The Administration will argue that letting students help select an administrative leader is tantamount to having Dean Epps help elect the President of the Undergraduate Council or the President of the Crimson. What this objection overlooks is that the Administration and the Undergraduate Council (or for that matter any other student organization) are not symmetrical in power or influence. What the Administration decides is binding on the students; what the student government decides is by no means binding on the administration.

Because students will necessarily be affected by this decision both in the short and long terms, the students of Harvard College demand no less that equal representation on a joint student faculty search committee Again, please don't shut out the students!

David L. Hanselman '94-'95 is President of the Undergraduate Council.