Do We Have to?

Just before the Faculty voted last Tuesday to approve tutorial legislation--aimed at increasing Faculty participation in tutorials--Dean Rosovsky rose to put a simple question before his colleagues: "Do we or do we not believe in tutorials?"

The Faculty's subsequent passage of the legislation would appear to answer that question.

Nevertheless, though all Faculty members claim to support tutorials, their enthusiasm dims when faced with the requirements of the legislation--the latest in a long history of tutorial reforms.

Patrice L.R. Higonnet, head tutor in History, said yesterday it would be difficult to require History professors to teach tutorials. "I don't think it's the function of a head tutor to force professors to teach tutorial," he said.

The legislation also requires that the departments offer special sophomore and junior seminars taught by professors in lieu of graduate-run tutorials.

The History Department will meet on May 17 to discuss how they will comply with the legislation next year.

James S. Ackerman, head tutor in Fine Arts, yesterday also expressed doubts about the future of the tutorial reforms. He said his department may be "overloaded with rules" next year, because they must also adhere to the regulations of the Core Curriculum. "If we get enough rules, we won't be able to fulfill any of them," he added.

But if head tutors do insist that professors participate actively in tutorials, the legislation will provide them with that Ackerman termed its most valuable quality: arm twisting power.