VAPID CURRICULUM REFORM

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Dean May's call for curriculum reform, and the current level of dissension, raise some serious questions about real educational reform at Harvard. The movement here got a dose of repression from the Committee of Fifteen last Spring. Now Dean May, having announced his presence over the bullhorn with the Resolution on Rights and Responsibilities, is speaking in soothing tones of liberal curriculum reform. If repression hasn't stifled discontent, will caption do the job? Will the promise of a little more novelty and fun in the curriculum divert attention from substantive issues and suppress just demands for fundamental reform?

What institutions does Harvard serve, and how does the curriculum serve their purpose? In lofty preambles on the purposes of the university, no mention is made of the elaborate system of grades, credits, and degrees. What is the purpose of this activity of the university? The economic and political power structure of the nation is staffed by an elite meritocracy of specialists, whose skill in accomplishing assigned tasks is exceeded only by unwillingness to question or redefine those tasks. What sort of education turns bright young people into amoral functionaries?

Who sets the academic priorities of the university? Why are disciplines such as Materials Science and Asian Studies generously supported while the Ed School goes begging and Ecology has been ignored for decades? Who gets fired, and why?

Last Spring there was a successful experiment in curriculum reform. For a time students set their own educational priorities, and they turned out to be quite different from those of the Corporation and visiting committees. Dean May knows that. Have we forgotten?

Are we going to let the discussion of curriculum reform degenerate into a vapid debate on Gen Ed VS. concentration requirements? Will the reform consist of a little reshuffling within the faculty? Will students accept the ground rules for discussion laid down by the Dean (i.e., talk reform according to the Dean's proscribed curriculum)?

If we're going to build a better society, how long do we work according to somebody else's blueprint for change? If we don't have the nerve to challenge how Harvard rules, what can we expect to do with America?

Meaningful curriculum reform must involve a shift of emphasis from testing and certification to inquiry and participation. I propose, as a first step to curriculum reform, that Harvard College abolish the system of grades and credits, and cease granting degrees.