Two-Dean Structure Is Best

In a political climate where "change" is the slogan, it's not surprising that Harvard is considering some administrative changes as well. But as the American electorate may soon learn, sometimes change can do more harm than good.

Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles is expected to decide this week how to restructure the College dean's office in the wake of Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57's retirement at the end of this academic year. Knowles will make his decision in part based on recommendations from a major faculty report.

Last Sunday, the Undergraduate Council endorsed a resolution supporting what the report calls the "Two-Dean Structure," which would essentially preserve the status quo. We agree with the Council. It is unnecessary to change the present structure, especially when change would isolate students from the administrator who runs the College.

Drafted several months ago, the Report on the Structure of Harvard College calls the present Dean of the College's position "very burden-some, having a huge scope, a great number of day to day responsibilities...and a large number of directly reporting individuals and offices."

In response, the Report suggests three possible models to decrease "the direct responsibilities" of the Dean of the College position. As students we fear that decreasing these responsibilities would decrease the dean's contact with the students he governs.

Knowles has reportedly rejected the "Divisional Structure" model, which would divide the responsibilities of the Dean of the College into three or four "Area Academic Deans." Now he is considering whether to preserve the current system or to elevate the Dean of the College's position to include more general control over academic issues in addition to current duties.

The "Two-Dean Structure" would essentially continue the present system where two deans divide responsibility for student issues and academic concerns. The Dean of the College is responsible for issues relating to students' lives at the College, including housing matters and extracurricular programs. The Dean for Undergraduate Education, currently Lawrence Buell, supervises academic issues such as grading and the CUE guide.

In the other model, which council president David L. Hanselman '94-'95 dubbed the "Super-Dean Structure," the position of Dean of the College would be elevated above its present status, and would stand above two other deans: the Dean of Students and the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.

The new Dean of the College would add another layer in the administration. Instead of just two deans beneath the Dean of the Faculty, many of the two deans' decision-making powers would be delegated to an intermediary dean between them and the Dean of the Faculty.

And this means one more bureaucratic level separating the students from the College's power structure. As the Dean of the College's responsibilities increase to include academic issues, his direct contact with students would necessarily decrease.

As Dean of the College, Jewett has been both accessible and responsive to the concerns of Harvard students. The Dean holds regular office hours and advises eight to 10 first-years annually. He sits on the student-faculty Committees on College Life and on House Life, where he discusses such issues as student choice in the housing lottery.

It's quite possible that if Jewett had been more removed from student concerns, he would have acceded to the House Masters' ongoing requests to randomize the housing lottery process.

And this is why it's so important for Knowles to preserve the Present College dean structure. While the new Dean's own operating style will determine in part how closely he or she maintains contact with students, an additional layer of bureaucracy will surely result in a more isolated dean.

If Knowles follows the Super-Dean model, Harvard students will lose access to the administrator who makes final decisions on so many issues of student life. While students will be directed to the Dean of Students, the Dean of the College will likely be kept busy with his extensive administrative duties.

Students already have little access to Knowles and President Neil L. Rudenstine, but these administrators' duties are usually remote from student concern.

The Dean of the College, in contrast, is responsible for those issues, which directly affect student life.

If the Dean of the College in its present incarnation is a "very burdensome" job, Knowles should change those duties without limiting the dean's contact with students. As Dean of the College for the past 10 years, Jewett has served the students well. Knowles should keep the present structure.