Knowles: Mansfield Free to Express Opinions

Since the substance of Mr. Ali's letter to me about the remarks of Professor Mansfield on grade inflation in the College has appeared in The Crimson, and since Mansfield has also written to you on this subject, I thought it would be helpful for me to send you what I wrote in my reply to Mr. Ali, on March 9:

I can understand your concerns about the comments attributed to Professor Mansfield in the January 15th issue of The Crimson. On the academic question of grade inflation that triggered your letter to me, let me say simply that I know of no evidence to indicate that grade inflation at Harvard was due in any way to the enrollment of greater numbers of minority students in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is (and always has been) the clear responsibility of all professors to ensure that the grading of their courses is equitable, consistent and is based solely upon academic performance. The recent discussions in the Educational Policy Committee about grade inflation came, in fact, from a quite difference direction: namely the recognition and concern that grading practices were somewhat uneven amongst courses, and amongst the three divisions (Humanities, Social Sciences and Natural Sciences) within the College.

As for your concerns about the administration's not having responded to Mansfield's reported comments, let me say two things. First, as reported in the March 3 issue of The Crimson, President Rudenstine did address the subject when questioned by student reporters during an interview in January. Asked about grade inflation, he is reported to have said: "I don't think that had anything to do with the frame of mind and ideology of the 60s." I realize you were not aware of Rudenstine's January comments when you sent your February 24 letter, but I hope you appreciate that the "administration" was not "silent" on the issue of grade inflation when a question was posed.

That brings me to my second point. In drawing attention to the particular remark about grade inflation at the College, you have raised an important question concerning the kinds of issues for which an institutional response from an office of the University is helpful and proper. In a university such as ours, the members of the community have broad latitude to express themselves openly and candidly, even though such freedom may sometimes result in the expression of views that are perceived by many of us as insensitive or even hurtful. When a disputable or controversial assertion is made by (or attributed to) a member of the community. I think the most effective response is for those individuals and groups who disagree to answer directly with counter arguments, facts and analyses of the issue. I neither question Mansfield's right to speak his mind, nor your right (and that of others) to challenge him to provide facts to support his statements.

The university administration, however, cannot and should not undertake to monitor the daily flow of expression--by students, faculty members and others--and then respond immediately to any and all remarks that might be regarded as offensive. That is not to say that individuals in the administration will not on occasion, and in appropriate circumstances, express a view when confronted with remarks they disagree with; as happened in this case. Nor is it to say that we will tolerate instances of harassment under existing guidelines; we will not. But it seems to me that when students or other members of our community disagree with a statement attributed to another student or faculty member on an issue of public debate, the most appropriate and effective response will generally be to confront that statement directly. In this way, the issue and the attention of everyone can be engaged in an open and searching discussion.

I am concerned to improve the understanding and strengthen the sense of community among all groups in the College, and I look forward to working with you and others toward this goal. -Jeremy R. Knowles   Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences