University Democracy

ONE OF THE most disagreeable trends surfacing in the Faculty reorganization of the Afro Department is the hardening of Harvard's position against university democracy. When Afro was first constituted in 1969 students were included on that Department's executive board and given a vote on Afro faculty appointments. While the current position of students on the executive board remains unclear, the Faculty has decided to take voting rights away from students on faculty appointments. This is a step backward and it is indicative of Harvard's desire to run the University without what it calls student interference.

In the list of reasons given for the supposed failure of Afro to attract capable faculty, the voting right of students is typically ranked first. No outstanding academic, so the reasoning goes, would agree to place himself under the scrutiny of students in order to receive an appointment. This argument against student vote on faculty appointments is unacceptable because Harvard should have no desire to hire faculty who might also fear undergoing the scrutiny of students in the classroom.

A second argument against giving students voting rights on faculty appointments is that if the students are highly politicized and represent one political opinion rather than another, the faculty approved by these students will represent the same political distribution. This argument, which is premised on the belief that academics and politics do not mix, is insufficient in that it unfairly questions the motivation and responsibility of Harvard students. It also ignores the fact that faculty members may be as politically motivated as students.

The benefits of student voting on faculty appointments are clear. It would be another step in guaranteeing the quality of faculty and a means of ensuring that students would not be alienated from the academic life of their University.

The new and much needed perspective students would give to the process of faculty selection makes the student vote on new appointments important and desirable. Students would pay careful attention to the potential appointee's concern for undergraduates and to his teaching abilities. Furthermore, students would not be subject to the same professional jealousies that influence some present faculty members when they sit on search committees for new faculty.

It is important that the Faculty restore the student vote to the Afro Department and extend the right to vote on faculty appointments to students in other departments. The failure of the Faculty to accept this opportunity for cooperation would be unfortunate and would only serve to impress on students that cooperation with faculty and administration is unworkable.