Sidestepping the Faculty's Vote

Although discussions have rightly guided the Harvard College Curricular Review so far, perhaps it is to Montesquieu whom the administration should turn at this stage. History has proven Montesquieu’s emphasis on systems of checks and balances invaluable to America, and we believe the current University administration ought to take to heart the lessons from this country’s founding fathers. While the College—as opposed to the state—will never be governed democratically, the recent revelation that most of the proposals of the curricular review will ultimately be at the unchecked, unbalanced mercy of University Hall is disturbing to say the least.

True, many members of the Faculty are far from the appropriate arbiters of proposals for reforming student life, but neither should University administrators attempt to play that role alone. Judging from some of its previous, ill-conceived plans to revise areas of student concern, we are worried about the central administration’s complete autonomy in implementing many of the review’s more controversial goals. Although the Faculty successfully stymied the administration’s flawed and secretive preregistration proposal, no such barrier stands in the way this time around. Given that many of the proposed plans—including completely reworking undergraduate advising and assigning first-years to Houses upon arrival—remain vague at best and misguided at worst, this recent revelation is cause for concern.

Besides ensuring more rigorous discussion of and justification for propositions, Faculty votes help ensure that decision-makers consult the people they ought to consult. And considering the outcry at recent Faculty meetings concerning the level of transparency in the review, we fear that the necessary discussions are not taking place. For example, in March, now-outgoing Dean of Freshmen Elizabeth Studley Nathans told The Crimson that nobody at the Freshman Deans Office had been “consulted” by curricular review committees, which were at the time completing the first phase of the review. Nathans declined to comment further on these matters when contacted on Tuesday. While outreach to House masters and senior tutors seems to be underway, with no analogue to a Faculty vote on the horizon, we worry that the final plans may be significantly flawed.

Furthermore, we deem the administration’s efforts to solicit input from students inadequate. Although we appreciate the work that has been done thus far—student representation on select committees, a handful of open discussion sessions, accepting e-mail feedback and surveying students on their broad opinions—the level of student engagement in the process has been undeniably insufficient. Of course, this lackluster response does not come as a surprise, considering that the substantive parts of the review happen behind closed doors. We are confident that if the review committees were to release public notes of their proceedings and provide the community with detailed proposals for how they plan to implement the review, students would have plenty of specific concerns and opinions to offer. Until then, it is no wonder that so many students feel disconnected from and distrustful of the process.

University Hall, to be sure, has the prerogative to consult whomsoever it chooses, and ultimately it will make the tough decisions on its own. But if administrators want the curricular review to be done right, to be done in a way that students and faculty perceive as legitimate, then they must build the necessary checks and balances into the system—a system which it seems to be making up as it goes along.