Critics of University's Administration Advise Increase in Faculty Democracy

Revision of Harvard's constitutional set-up in the direction of more Faculty democracy is called for in two recent articles in leading liberal weeklies criticizing the Administration's tenure policies.

Although he finds The Committee of Eight's personnel recommendations generally excellent. Marshall H. Stone '23, associate professor of Mathematics, writing in this week's The Nation doubts the effects on undergraduate teaching of the downward shift in age-distribution in the permanent Faculty ranks.

"The wisdom of increasing even slightly the proportion of junior teachers in a university where it is already the practice to futurst a great deal of the undergraduate instruction to the less experienced teachers is open to serious question on educational grounds." Stone says.

He describes the conflict ever the dismissal last Spring of the assistant professors as "the natural result of six years of continued administrative friction and growing distrust of the policies in force."

He concludes that Harvard should reconsider its constitutional set-up, and ask itself this question: "Can the complex modern university he governed both wisely and satisfactorily without effective, constitutional participation of its faculties in the decision of questions of general policy bearing directly on their several education functions?"

Last week, Irwin Rose '40 criticised the "autocrary" of the administration.