Nieman Fellows Criticize 'Crimson' Article

(Note: Ardery's reply is on page 6)

To the Editors of the Crimson:

The article on the Nieman Fellowship program and Fellows written by Philip Ardery, suffers more than most such Crimson efforts from garbled facts, inaccurate reporting and erroneous conclusions. It is striking example of parajournalism at its worst, complete with neatly evoked atmosphere and gross factual errors.

As Ardery sees it (at least part of he time) the Nieman Fellows are for the most part wasting their year at Harvard by treating it as a time for trade schooling. He confuses the issue at times by seeming to approve of such an approach by specialists in law, education, or science, but his main contention nevertheless rests on the assumption that Niamey Fellows spend too much time on too narrow a range of subjects. Even if this were necessarily a bad thing--and again Artery points approvingly to the example of Anthony Lewis of The New York Times to illustrate that it does not have to be--his assumption not be correct. There are at least as many men in this year's Nieman program, as in past, who do on their return to work as there are who are following narrower and deeper course plans.

To name several who come immediately to mind from the first term: Bob Caro, general assignment reporter for Newsday, concentrated much of his effort and classes in the English department on such trade-related subjects as "The Romans in America"; Ralph Hancox, editor of the Peterborough, Ontario, Examiner, devoted most of his time to French and a social relations course; former New York Herald Tribune Moscow reporter David Miller could be found as often in fine arts and music courses as in those related to the Soviet Union; and one of this year's specialists among the Fellows never set foot, in a course related to his field during the first term.

There are many more examples than these. Jack Bass and Bob Maynard, quoted in Ardery's article, can speak for themselves. Here, however, it must be noted that Jack also included a course in American poetry in his first term (and what direct relevance Merle Fainsod's course has to covering the South Carolina political scene is beyond me). And Bob took course in fine arts and music. In fact, in leaving out these two courses from Maynard's list, Ardery seemed to be setting him up as the specialist he was obviously not designed to represent in the article.

Nor is Bob the only main in our group who did not go to college. This is a minor point, but the inaccuracy here is representative of the general inaccuracy of the entire piece. (God save us if appearing over WHRB, which many of the Fellows have done, is now the mark of the well-rounded academician or scholar.)

Read the Reports

But Ardery did not have to rely on intuition, an interview or two or a few chance remarks to discover what Niemans of the past and present have chosen to do. He could easily have read the reports filed by past Fellows at the end of their stay at Harvard. If he had done so, he would have discovered the diversity in courses and experiences which have marked the Nieman program's impact on each participant. For Tony Lewis, there has also been a Tom Wicker of the same paper, whose experience and advice involved sampling widely of all Harvard has to offer. It is simply a misstatement of fact to say that "most of the Fellows use Harvard as a trade school." A little checking, one of the basics expected even of a college journalist, would have destroyed this premise which Ardery apparently carried into his research.

Perhaps Ardery went astray by choosing to read what the Niemans suggested they wanted to do before they arrived here, instead of asking them what they are doing now. If he had read the description of my intentions in the Nieman announcement, he would have decided that I was now taking courses in Southern history and politics. In point of fact, I have taken none in either. Most of us in the program discovered new horizons while shopping around for courses during the first few weeks of the Fall term. We promptly shed many prior intentions in favor of new ones. (I expect Phil Ardery did the same at some point in his Harvard career.)

But let us consider some other facts for a moment, and balance them against Ardery's implications and conclusions.

He apparently confuses Nieman seminars with Nieman dinners. The seminars, usually held for two hours every Tuesday afternoon, are almost entirely devoted to hearing from the Harvard academic and administrative community. If any one area of study has dominated the list (and I don't believe it has), it could only have been by a narrow margin. We have heard from and argued with deans, physicists, law school professors, musicians, English professors and engineering spokesmen, as well as professors from the departments of government, social relations and history.

Talk Shop

As for the dinner, they have this year as in the past been a forum for editors, reporters and publishers to talk some aspects of shop. These dinners are actually the only time that the Nieman program comes close to resembling a trade school. This aspect of Nieman deserves attention, and obviously some speakers are better (or worse) than others, but it is hardly the tail which wags the dog.

Attendance is undoubtedly "expected" at the dinners and seminars, as it is at most Harvard classes. But as with most Harvard classes, no one is standing over the Fellows with a whip demanding attendance. I doubt if one of us has not missed one or two dinners and seminars because of conflicts in schedule, lack of interest in the subject, or some other reason.

Conant's Curator

Louis Lyons and Dwight Sargent need no defense from me, since what they have accomplished (and the record of past Niemans in and out of Journalism) speaks for itself. Suffice it to note that President Conant, whose hopes for the Nieman program were so often invoked by Ardery, was sufficiently well pleased by the program developed under Lyons to keep him in the curator's post. And also to note that President Pusey, and journalists in general, have felt the same way about Lyons and now about Sargent.

It is not true that the business of putting children into school (which mothers usually handle), or moving up here, take "precedence over investigating thoroughly Harvard's academic opportunities." The latter both take place well before Harvard's school year begins. As Ardery presumably knows, the selection of courses does not take shape until they have been sampled during the first few weeks of the term.

"Harvard intimidates the nonacademic and Cambridge the non-Easterner," says Ardery. A non-Easterner (and perhaps non-academic), he must speak for himself on this. I can only say that none of my fellow Niemans have shown any signs of intimidation during the past five months. As for our alleged "fraternal complacency," it is conjured up as the program's mood under Lyons, then as neatly evaporated under Sargent. Ardery's assertions in neither case automatically give the moods life. No evidence is advanced to suggest either In fact, they did not and do not exist.

Ardery suggests one or two good points, for which he deserves credit for their advancement if not their originality. Help with housing would be appreciated, as would more money for the married Fellows (although the bachelors might well raise the question of fairness). But Dwight Sargent most strongly does encourage "imaginative and original study plans," conducting the first group meeting of the year in such a way that the Fellows are exposed to a dozen different suggestions on how to use the year. The underlying assumption is that the Nieman Fellows are adult enough to select those courses and programs which would best enrich or help them. We do not need or want overt guidance, because this would be the surest prescription for stifling diversity.

There are aspects of the Nieman program which could be profitably altered, as with any program. Ardery's article, however, misread completely where the program stands today and what it has meant in the past.  Hodding Carter III  Nieman Fello