The Great 'Search' For College Dean

When Harvard picked a first-year dean three years ago, students were on the search committee. The process went so well, administrators said at the time, that it would serve as a model for future searches.

After decades of complaining about closed searches and "diverse" search committees that weren't diverse enough to include any students, we were heartened by that promise. After all, it made good, old-fashioned common sense. Administrative candidates whose decisions will affect undergraduates ought to be evaluated by undergraduates.

But, three years later, Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles has turned his back on the College's commitment to student representation on search committees. In doing so, he trampled on what we believe is the fundamental right of Harvard students to help govern the College they attend.

Earlier this month, when Knowles picked Harry R. Lewis '68 to be the next dean of Harvard College, the selection process looked less like an honest search than a coronation of Lewis, the co-author of a recent report calling for the restructuring of the College.

Knowles, claims that he talked to dozens of professors and administrators before naming Lewis. He also spoke with leaders of the Undergraduate Council about the structure of the job. But he never formed a formal search committee, never solicited applications and never got students' views on specific candidates for the post.

Those are all basics for any important administrative appointment. Good administrators know that the best way to find the best person for a job is first to convince a large number of talented candidates to apply. Then, a group of faculty, staff and students from different backgrounds works together to choose a candidate.

The reason for all this consulting, cooperation and vetting is based on this premise: One man, even if he is, say, a brilliant chemist and the dean of the Faculty at Harvard, doesn't have the breadth of knowledge, experience and perspective to make the decision all by himself.

That's at least the way they treat appointments at other schools. At most universities, undergraduates are involved in the search for every position from dean of students on up. The best example of this might be the University of Pennsylvania, where students participated in the recent vetting of candidates for president. Yale provost Judith Rodin eventually got the job, and it's no coincidence that she is the Ivy League president most responsive to student concerns.

Harvard doesn't care as much about students. It's part of the institutional ethos: you students may be here for four years, but we administrators will be here forever. So screw you.

That may be the way things are, but that's not the way things have to be. The Great Non Search for Dean of the College now offers Harvard a chance to change its ways. Lewis is not scheduled to take the job until July 1. Maybe--hope against hope--there is still time for Knowles to reconsider and form a search committee with students as members.

The problem with the new appointment is not necessarily Lewis. It's possible that he's the best choice for the job. But only a thorough, exhaustive search will make us confident of that.

We do have serious reservations about Lewis, though. Yes, students and colleagues in the computer science department say they like the professor. But there are dozens of faculty members who are well-liked by their students and colleagues. Being popular and active in your department doesn't necessarily mean you should be Dean of the College.

Knowles also cites Lewis' service on Faculty committees as evidence of his ability to serve the College well. Lewis' record on those committees, however, calls into question his commitment to openness and candor, two characteristics that any good Dean of the College must have.

For years, Lewis has chaired the Standing Committee on Athletics, which oversees Harvard's athletic department. As chair of that committee, Lewis publicly maintained that Harvard was providing the same resources to women's athletes as it did to men. But even as he was saying that, University reports that Lewis and his committee were reading told a different story. Harvard was spending twice as much on men's sports as on women's teams.

As co-chair of the Faculty's information technology committee, Lewis has overseen the rocky rise of the computer network as the medium of choice on campus. But Lewis and his committee have been notoriously intransigent. They took more than a year to find a permanent director for the Harvard Arts and Science Computer Services, and they were unable to fill jobs in the computer services in anything resembling a timely fashion.

HASCS workers, in fact, had frequently complained about staff, space and money shortages which made it difficult to do their jobs. Lewis' committee had heard complaints for months and been presented with detailed memos on the subject. But when he was interviewed last spring for a series on the network, Lewis lied. He denied knowing anything about complaints or problems in HASCS.

Perhaps, Lewis had some compelling reason for his lack of candor on these two important issues. But we can't think of a good one. Perhaps a search committee could answer this question: why should we trust Lewis to tell the truth as Dean of the College?

Lewis' authorship of the Report on Harvard College also makes his selection curious. The newly appointed dean says that while he intends to hear more viewpoints between now and July 1, he stands behind the recommendations of the report. That means a Lewis administration would see a number of changes, most notably randomization of the housing lottery, that are wildly unpopular with students.

The lack of care and sensitivity in the compiling of the report also calls Lewis' judgment into question. The appendix on PBH is instructive. There, Lewis and the report's other authors call for a restructuring that would eliminate the jobs of one, if not both, of the leaders of Harvard's popular public service programs. The problem is that the report's authors never interviewed any of the student coordinators of popular outreach programs like HAND.

We would hope that, as dean, Lewis would consult with more people and reconsider the recommendation he made in the report. But there it is again. All we have is hope. No search committee ever got a chance to ask Lewis about his plans for public service, or anything else.

Lewis, however, is not the only issue here. The man whose judgment is most open to question is Knowles. This excuse-for-a-real-search might be dismissed as an aberration if the dean had showed more than a passing interest in students' opinions in the past. Knowles, however, meets with students only when they express an interest. And sometimes, even when they request a meeting, he will deny the request and hand-off to a lower ranking administrator. It is not uncommon for Knowles--the man responsible for the courses undergraduates take and the faculty who teach them--to have weeks when the only undergraduate he talks to for more than 10 minutes is a Crimson reporter.

We hope this editorial is a wake-up call for Knowles. It is not acceptable for a dean of the Faculty to be so hopelessly, and unapologetically, out of touch. In future searches for important administrative jobs, let this be the guiding principle: a search is only legitimate if students participate in all aspects, from the screening of applications to the interviewing of specific candidates. Perhaps without knowing it, Lewis himself recently made the argument for such a policy. "We have many bright and imaginative students here," he said, "and good ideas may come from any of them."

Obviously, our administration currently cares little about student input in the appointment process. But undergraduates can force them to include students on search committees--if we forcefully pressure and lobby them.

All student groups have a responsibility to push for change on this issue. Many groups have been strangely and irresponsibly silent on the matter of Lewis' selection. And staying silent means that Harvard's student body will continue to be plagued by the same malady: administration without representation.