Administration's Ties With Faculty Seen as Strained

Before the Corporation made its decision on a series of proposals from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) regarding retirement benefits, many faculty members felt the relationship between FAS and the central administration stood at a crossroads.

But with the release of a report this past Thursday detailing the Corporation's rejection of one of those proposals, the faculty seems to feel the wrong road has been taken.

Already, the faculty has expressed anger and frustration about being ignored by the original University Task Force on Benefits.

In addition, many faculty members are angry over what they call a series of bad financial decisions by the central administration. Next week the faculty will discuss the creation of an FAS committee to monitor the University's large-budget projects.

Finally, the replacement of retiring Corporation member Charles P. Slichter '45, a physicist and chemist at the University of Illinois, with James R. Houghton '58, the CEO of Corning, Inc., was a signal to some observers that the University's highest governing board was becoming too corporate and less academic.

Despite all this turmoil, some professors maintained a pose of restraint about the central administration, citing the Corporation's impending decision on benefits as a more appropriate indicator of the weight of the faculty's influence.

"We'll have to wait and see whether the Corporation is sympathetic to the present benefits task force," Mallinckrodt Professor of Applied Physics William Paul said after Houghton was named earlier this month. "That will be the test."

Now that that decision has been rendered, many faculty seem to think that the Corporation failed that test.

Several faculty have openly criticized the Corporation's recent decision to maintain the one percent cut in faculty pensions a task force recommended last year.

This criticism came despite the Corporation's decision to accede to the faculty's request that a "soft cap" on health replace the "hard cap" the task force had recommended.

'In-Your-Face Rejection'

"It is an in-your-face rejection...The recommendations of the Standing Committee on benefits were very modest, you know," Paul said. "They were based on a demonstration that many of the cuts being put forth by the task force were inappropriate."

"Now we have the Corporation that is saying that they're going to carry on anyway," Paul said. "The question of a collaborative and cooperative relationship between the Faculty and the Corporation is an issue."

Other professors agreed. ,

"They have rather forcefully told us to go backto teaching, that they'll be responsible for thepalce," said McKay Professor of MechanicalEngineering Frederick H. Abernathy.

Arnold Professor of Science William H. Bossert,said he wasn't quite so upset about theCorporation's actual decision.

But Bossert echoed the concerns of many facultywhen he said that a series of recent eventsreflect a deteriorating faculty-administrationrelationship.

"When you have people in those two differentwavelengths who don't really understand eachother, you'll have trouble," Bossert said.

"The lack of respect between the administrationand the faculty is what worries me about all this.I don't think we really understand each other realwell. I think very few members of theadministration...have enough close ties to Harvardin their past to understand that this is a verydifferent business from Proctor and Gamble," hesaid.

The Harvard administration contends that it didinclude the faculty in their decision and that FAScommittee report was carefully read andconsidered.

"Being responsive does not necessarily meancomplete agreement," said Provost AlbertCarnesale.

President Neil L. Rudenstine even went out ofhis way to praise the work of the committee. Inaddition, a University-wide committee under theauspices of Provost Carnesale has been establishedin the past few months.

Still, though, many faculty and observers saythat they are not convinced there is any truedesire to enfranchise the faculty.

"I'm sure the Corporation will say that theywant to consult, but this is a pretty outrightrejection of a very serious faculty report andit's a very serious rejection," Paul said in aninterview on Thursday

"They have rather forcefully told us to go backto teaching, that they'll be responsible for thepalce," said McKay Professor of MechanicalEngineering Frederick H. Abernathy.

Arnold Professor of Science William H. Bossert,said he wasn't quite so upset about theCorporation's actual decision.

But Bossert echoed the concerns of many facultywhen he said that a series of recent eventsreflect a deteriorating faculty-administrationrelationship.

"When you have people in those two differentwavelengths who don't really understand eachother, you'll have trouble," Bossert said.

"The lack of respect between the administrationand the faculty is what worries me about all this.I don't think we really understand each other realwell. I think very few members of theadministration...have enough close ties to Harvardin their past to understand that this is a verydifferent business from Proctor and Gamble," hesaid.

The Harvard administration contends that it didinclude the faculty in their decision and that FAScommittee report was carefully read andconsidered.

"Being responsive does not necessarily meancomplete agreement," said Provost AlbertCarnesale.

President Neil L. Rudenstine even went out ofhis way to praise the work of the committee. Inaddition, a University-wide committee under theauspices of Provost Carnesale has been establishedin the past few months.

Still, though, many faculty and observers saythat they are not convinced there is any truedesire to enfranchise the faculty.

"I'm sure the Corporation will say that theywant to consult, but this is a pretty outrightrejection of a very serious faculty report andit's a very serious rejection," Paul said in aninterview on Thursday