To Improve Classroom Conversations, Train Our TFs.

A groundbreaking Faculty of Arts and Sciences committee report continues to ripple across campus.

The Classroom Social Compact Committee raised concerns that students sometimes intentionally produce work that aligns with the views of their instructors in order to boost grades. The committee recommended explicit protections for faculty speech outside the classroom alongside affirmations that students are entitled to their political opinions — however different from those of their instructors — without fear of retribution.

The report is right: While educators are entitled to share their beliefs publicly, students must also express and defend our views in the classroom — even when they conflict with those of our teachers. To strike the proper balance between these pedagogical imperatives in practice, the University ought to support those engaged in the nitty-gritty work of our education — teaching fellows.

In our experience, professors at Harvard already walk this tightrope with appropriate caution, offering their expert opinions while making space for disagreement when reasonable. We’re grateful when our instructors encourage us to weigh the strength of arguments and carefully critique those that we find faulty.

And while no student should feel pressured to adopt a particular stance on a controversial topic for the sake of securing a good grade, it can be a fruitful exercise to develop and consider arguments you may not agree with. Indeed, encouraging students to do just that can assuage concerns about voicing perspectives at odds with those of an instructor.

But to make speaking up in class easier, administrators should shift their sights from the lecture hall to the section room. To improve classroom discussions, Harvard should better support its TFs.

TFs are often the most actively involved in facilitating course conversations and grading student work. Despite their prominent pedagogical roles, however, TFs earn their positions primarily for their research capabilities as graduate students.

To complement their subject matter expertise, the University must support TFs with more standardized training and grading guidelines.

This isn’t to point the finger at TFs themselves. From working overtime in office hours to providing personalized feedback, we’re hugely appreciative of all they do. Rather, the onus is on Harvard to provide its frontline teachers with the resources they need to excel in their roles.

Many courses already maintain an infrastructure to alleviate concerns about TF bias. For instance, some allow students to resubmit work directly to professors or a head TF to get a second opinion on the quality of their assignments. Harvard should consider standardizing practices like this one to bolster students’ willingness to argue faithfully for their views.

TFs are indispensable to the academic work of our University. The least Harvard can do is equip them with the guidance they need to do it well.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.