On the Outside, Looking

Harvard is very fond of committees.

In the past two years, University officials have appointed committees on ROTC, on educational policy, on free speech, on computer usage and on and on.

In fact, it sometimes seems as though there are more standing committees, ad hoc committees and subcommittees than students, So perhaps having a standing committee that deals with visiting committees--as the University does--is not so surprising.

But in this case the additional body seems not to have arisen from administrative bloat, but rather from a desire to review the reviewers. A final report on Harvard's outside review process, which has undergone a great deal of reorganization during the past two decades, is due at the end of the summer, according to Provost Jerry R. Green.

Visiting committees, virtually unknown by students, work rather quietly behind the scenes. But groups of Overseers and experts in many fields travel to Harvard on a regular basis to examine every aspect of Harvard life, from athletics to visual and environmental studies.

Like Harvard, the visiting committee system is very old, very large and very complex. The number of committees, which date back at least 100 years, has risen to 57, and many have their own ad-hoc subcommittees. There are also five standing committees to which the visiting committees report.

Committees inside the Faculty of Arts and Sciences meet once every three years and others meet every year, each speaking with faculty, staff and administrators and, where appropriate, undergraduate and graduate students.

All the committees, however, release comprehensive reports every three years, which are circulated among departments and deans before being presented to the Overseers.

While the process of choosing visiting committee members is extremely flexible, each committee must have at least one Overseer. Suggestions for other members are solicited from sources inside and outside Harvard, according to Elizabeth A. Gray '70, senior associate secretary of the Board of Overseers.

"It's a way of bringing in outside perspective, peer perspective on our academic programs...and for all sorts of other programs," says Gray, who manages the non-Faculty of Arts and Sciences visiting committees. "The idea is to draw in a very wide, diverse and informed set of perspectives."

The current reevaluation does not mark the first time the visiting committee system has been examined critically. In 1977, a report, spearheaded by then-Overseer president Helen S. Gilbert '26, completely redefined the criteria used for selecting committee members, according to Sheila L. Weiner, senior associate secretary of the Board of Overseers.

Now, Weiner says, those chosen are experts in their various fields. "Before it was sort of a hodgepodge," she says. "People were chosen who were friends of administrators."

And in the mid-1980s, the standing committees themselves were redefined in an effort led by former Overseer and committee member Judge Rya W. Zobel '53, who has served on the Germanic Languages, Arnold Arboretum and Kennedy School of Government visiting committees.

Before the redefinition, Zobel says, graduate schools were lumped together with the Faculty departments of the same character. Now one standing committee deals with the College, continuing education and the graduate schools.

"It seemed not particularly useful to combine reports of the Kennedy School and the Social Studies department," she says. "Graduate schools have problems in common much more than they do with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences departments."

But the current scrutiny, according to Green, is intended to look less at the structure of the committee system and more at how it actually works in practice.

"The reports should get in the hands of the department chairs more quickly," says Green, who is working on the report with the Committee on Visitation. "[And in] some areas that only get visited every three years, it's a little too slow. Then there are other cases where three years may even be too frequent."

Vincent J. McGugan '72, chair of the visiting committee on athletics, disagrees with Green's second point. "Three years is a period of time to get major changes and trends," he says. "I think our perspective is more longterm."

Princeton associate provost Ruth J. Simmons, chair of Harvard's Afro-American Studies visiting committee, says she thinks the committees meet often enough.

"Since the visit itself is so involved, it might be onerous to meet more often," says Simmons. "[This system] allows departments to address recommendations...between meetings."

Simmons says, however, that she thinks the committees themselves could move somewhat faster. One advantage of Princeton's visitation structure, she says, is that reports are issued more quickly once a committee is formed.

"It's not clear to me that it circulates back to the people who have the task of implementing the suggestions made," says Simmons.

But other committee members say there are problems Green's report will most likely not address, most importantly how usefully critical they are.

"FAS departments look on visiting committees coming to give assistance," says Andrew F. Brimmer, an overseer who has served several committees including the economics and Kennedy School committees.

"Most visiting committees turn in reports that are seldom critical. It is rare for the committees to raise fundamental criticisms," says Brimmer. "The typical report is only marginally helpful."

Other committee members, however, dispute Brimmer's view. Nancy G. Morgan, who has served on several committees, attributes the lack of immediate progress to the typical slowness of change in academia.

"We were able to point out some needs of the professors and departments [in Afro-American studies]," says Morgan. "It may not be a quick fix, but over time the concerns people may have with the department are looked at more quickly. Nothing moves quickly at the University."

MIT professor Jerome L. Friedman, chair of the physics visiting committee, says he has never been pressured by the department to soften reports.

"We look at it not as a personal matter," he says. "This is an outstanding group of physicists on this committee who are experienced in their respective communities."

And the visiting committees have not sat still over the past several years, instead turning inward to enact change within themselves. A recent trend, according to administrators, is the development of subcommittees dealing with more specific departments or issues.

This tendency has been most apparent at the graduate schools, where the practice began about five years ago, says Thomas L. O'Donnell, chair of the Law School and School of Public Health committees.

"The subcommittees [make] a brief report in writing, which is presented for discussion at the next meeting of the visiting committee," he says. "We just began the process of subcommittee visitation in the law school this spring."

Dean of the School of Public Health Harvey V. Fineberg '67, who helped O'Donnell develop the subcommittee process, says he finds it extremely helpful.

"A structure originally designed for working for a department like economics was thrust into a setting where there are hundreds of faculty members, complex departments," says Fineberg. "It's very clear that a single committee would have a difficult time encompassing the whole scope of the enterprise."

Several subcommittees have also been created at the Kennedy School, where Fineberg was also once on the visiting committee.

"We have one in the area of finance and development, with people giving us advice on our own financial systems," says Kennedy School Dean Albert Carnesale. "[We have] one on curriculum and instruction, and one on research."

The subcommittees at the Kennedy School were established as standing committees, says Carnesale. "We're moving more and more away from the annual meeting where we tell you what we're doing, which tends to be, from my view, too much show and tell," he says.

'It's very clear that a single committee would have a difficult time encompassing the whole scope of the enterprise.'

HARVEY V. FINEBERG '67, WHO HELPED DEVELOP THE SUBCOMMITTEES