Deans: IF's Are Students, Not Employees

Following is a statement to the Federation of Teaching Fellows from Dean Ford and John P. Elder, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. It is in reply to the teaching fellows' three-part proposal, presented to the Deans last week and printed in the CRIMSON on May 17.

In that proposal, the teaching fellows asked for a salary increase, for elimination of the junior pay scale, and for an equitable definition of 'one-fifth' teaching time.

These are our present reactions to the statement you sent us on 3 May in support of the Federation's recent petition "To the Administration and Faculty of Harvard University." We assume that the Federation and the Administration of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will continue to study the points raised on both sides, sitting down together to talk over divergent positions and attitudes.

(1) It is highly important for all of us concerned to decide whether Teaching Fellowships be viewed in the first instance as an educational matter and, as such, a desirable part of a Ph.D. program, or as a contractual matter concerned only with services and pay.

Obviously, the Administration has viewed the Teaching Fellowship as the former -- which is why we call it a Fellowship. This does not mean that the Administration is indifferent to adequate financial support for Teaching Fellows, but it does mean that, at least up to now, we have aimed at "adequate" rather than the highest stipends. While we certainly wish our rates to be at least "average" from a nationwide point of view, your conclusion in Appendix 2, IV, is not to us a distressing one; and we have not, frankly, been disturbed by the fact that some neighboring institutions pay their Teaching Assistants more than we do. To be perfectly candid about this matter, we believe Harvard has unique educational advantages to offer its Teaching Fellows. Even less are we concerned with the "poverty line" figure of $3,000 (page 8), for the reason that this figure is irrelevant. It is, we should add, a figure for twelve months, whereas a Teaching Fellow may earn additional income in the three summer months. One could argue as follows: But basically there is little point in such comparison of student fellowships with national labor statistics for breadwinners.

(2) The Staff Tuition Scholarships should be taken into account when computing the income of a Teaching Fellow junior grade. These scholarships in fact raise the total income of a Teaching Fellow junior grade above that of a Teaching Fellow senior grade. This is the time to point out that various forms of payment to Teaching Fellows cannot be separated for purposes of argument. They come from the same source, and go to the same people.

(3) Yet we recognize the difference between full and reduced tuition, and consequently we are willing to consider doing one of the two following things, beginning with the academic year 1968-69, and subject to the approval of the Dunlop Committee:

a) abolishing the junior rank of Teaching Fellows for a higher rate, but, WITHOUT assured supplementary payments toward tuition,

OR

b) increasing the ceiling of the Staff Tuition Scholarship for the Teaching Fellows junior grade from $1,530 to $2,000, at the same time reducing the number of recipients.

Increasing the Staff Tuition Scholarship would allow Teaching Fellows who are on 1/5 or 1/4 time to take four courses (for purely financial reasons under our present policy such Teaching Fellows frequently take only three courses). Further, the Staff Tuition Scholarship, at least as things are judged now, is not taxable. We should welcome the Federation's view on the choice before us.

(4) We can undertake no action, for the present or in the immediate future, as regards the rate of pay of the Teaching Fellow senior grade, since the funds for such an increase are not available. Indeed, given the Faculty's deficit for the current year and the grim outlook for 1967-68, our principal concern must be with efforts to control expenditures, though obviously not at the expense of graduate fellowships alone.

(5) We think that there should be a ceiling on the amount of money a Teaching Fellow may take in from a combination of his Teaching Fellowship and a scholarship from Harvard funds, and we are prepared to set such a ceiling. Perhaps the ceiling might be something like $4,500, but here again we would like the Federation's opinion.

(6) We are entirely sympathetic with the view that a 1/5 time teaching load should be equitably defined and administered, and we are just as anxious as you that this be done. The only question is that of the bases or criteria to be used.

When some years ago the Graduate Student Council and the Dean of the Graduate School drew up the present "rate of work" chart, it was finally concluded that the only practicable way to spell out the work required for different fractions was to stick entirely to the hours spent in actual meetings with students. It seemed impossible to cope with the fact that one Teaching Fellow may be better prepared for assisting in a course than another, or that one Teaching Fellow for his own academic interests deliberately wants to spend more time on a course than another, or that one Teaching Fellow may be overly conscientious while another is fairly indifferent about his teaching duties.

We need and ask for the Steering Committee's views here, so that we can arrive at some sort of basis for the amount of work required which we can actually live with and administer. Certainly we cannot each year ask all of the 900 Teaching Fellows to set down the number of hours they spend on their teaching duties. Perhaps the Steering Committee might first like to look at the fractions now used in evaluating tutorial; to us, though this is only a general feeling, these seem relatively heavy.

(7) We ought to say that the possibility of gradually, if only to a limited extent, reducing the number of our Teaching Fellows is directly related to the matter of reducing the size of the School as a whole. It might, in fact, be a good idea next year to have a Faculty committee look at the size of the School and at all our policies concerning various kinds of financial aid, especially in the light of reduced support from outside sources. We would assume that not only members of the Administration but also spokesmen for the Federation would testify before such a committee. 926 T.F.'s received for 1966-67: Teaching Stipends:  $1,645,167 Scholarships:  1,126,924 STS  350,000   $3,122,091 Average:  $3,375.