The Mail KILSON WRONG ON MOTIVES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

This is a reaction to the letter by Professor Kilson printed in the CRIMSON on Wednesday, October 22nd, about faculty acceptance of the Afro proposal last May.

I am continually amazed that responsible members of this faculty seem not to realize that the students' interest in faculty appointments are not inept carbon copies of faculty concerns. The faculty looks for competence in the field. and it certainly doesn't need student help in this. But expertise does not necessarily include the ability to transmit such knowledge successfully. The faculty as an entity, let's not fool ourselves, is less interested in the pedagogical abilities of a prospective colleague than students are. I think the position could be defended that a given faculty search committee could well be less competent to judge that quality, which is so critical for the students, than students themselves. As long as the tail doesn't wag the dog, what is wrong with giving students voting power on a search committee in order to have its legitimate interests taken into consideration? Once the appointment is made, the faculty members go back to their offices. The students are expected to attend the new man's lectures.

If Professor Kilson voted against the Afro proposal, hat is his privilege, and I don't question his motives. I voted for it, but he has got my motives for doing so all wrong. Nobody frightened me into it. I would have voted for the proposal if we had all been dancing around a Maypole together.