Calendar Reform Killed by Filled by Faculty

In what could be a death blow for the push to move fall semester exams before winter break, Faculty Council members voted unanimously this week to reject the Undergraduate Council's calendar reform proposal.

In denying the proposal, Faculty Council members said it would not provide sufficient benefits to the Harvard community.

The proposal, which would have moved the fall exams and shortened reading period, was approved last month by the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) after extensive lobbying by Undergraduate Council members.

But Faculty Council members said that the drawbacks for professors outweigh any advantage the proposal might offer to students.

Some Faculty members said they are not convinced that the proposal would be good for students, despite a College-wide referendum conducted last year that decisively demonstrated undergraduate support for the action.

"The Faculty Council seemed to feel that any major change in the status quo should not be entered into without a clear-cut advantage presenting itself in the proposed new arrangement," said Dean for Undergraduate Education Lawrence A. Buell, who presented the undergraduates' case to the Faculty Council Wednesday.

"It wasn't clear that there was any quantum-leap advantage to bringing Harvard in line with the rest of the world," Buell said.

According to Buell, while students might have a more relaxed winter break under the proposal, Faculty would have to grade final papers and exams andprepare for their second semester courses duringthat time.

"The Faculty who spoke acknowledged that theproposed change would logically look moreattractive to students than to Faculty," Buellsaid. "But in their judgment creating a fullwinter break for students would either deny orcurtail their own vacations."

The proposed calendar "seemed uncomfortable forprofessors, especially the ones who would have tograde exams on Christmas Eve," said AssistantProfessor of the Classics Cynthia Damon.

One professor even called the calendar reforms"inhumane" to professors with hectic family lives.

"We all have quality of life issues to thinkabout," said Professor of Sociology Theda Skocpol."We all have to give and take, and this was alltake and no give."

Professor of Classics and History ChristopherP. Jones, who is a member of both the FacultyCouncil and the CUE, said he felt that thearguments presented for changing the calendar werefocused primarily on the "comfort level" ofstudents.

"Valid arguments for changing the wholestructure of the year need to be based onsomething more than perceived mental cruelty,"Jones said.

According to Skocpol, "The issue was presentedso exclusively from an undergraduate perspectivethat it was not a wise proposal to put forward."

"It went over like a lead balloon," Skocpolsaid.

Buell called the Faculty Council "a fairmicrocosm" of the Faculty at large, andacknowledged that the council vote was "quitedecisive."

"After this discussion and decision, it wouldnot be productive to pursue this in the nearfuture," Buell said.

But undergraduate demands have been shot downbefore and a new generation of students can beexpected to revive the issue, said Secretary tothe Faculty Council John B. Fox Jr. '59.

Buell also said he expects to hear more fromundergraduates on the subject.

"I would not be surprised if the UndergraduateCouncil continues to express that calendar reformis an issue of importance to a lot of theirconstituents at CUE meetings," he said.

But Undergraduate Council representatives saidthis week that they see few avenues by which theycould pursue the issue now.

"We were apparently so summarily dismissed thatI don't know what we would do now," saidChristopher J. Garofalo '94, who began draftingthe calendar reform proposal during his tenure aschair of the Undergraduate Council's studentaffairs committee.

"I'm very disappointed in the Faculty Council'sdecision, and quite surprised that they came to itso quickly," Garofalo said. "But it seems clearthat they don't care what undergraduates think andwon't consider this again."

Garofalo called the Faculty "stubborn" and"selfish" in their rejection of the plan, whichwas the product of months of negotiation betweenstudents and Registrar Georgene B. Herschbach.

"We were willing to bargain and sacrifice inorder to get this proposal into a from where itcould pass in CUE," Garofalo said. "And no oneever total us not to bother."

But Jones said the arguments against calendarreform presented in Wednesday's Faculty Councilmeeting echoed opposition to the proposaloriginally voiced in CUE.

"While there had been some support from Facultyin CUE, most of the pressure was from students andthe majority of people in favor in CUE wasslight," Jones said. "I certainly was not one whochanged my mind.

"The Faculty who spoke acknowledged that theproposed change would logically look moreattractive to students than to Faculty," Buellsaid. "But in their judgment creating a fullwinter break for students would either deny orcurtail their own vacations."

The proposed calendar "seemed uncomfortable forprofessors, especially the ones who would have tograde exams on Christmas Eve," said AssistantProfessor of the Classics Cynthia Damon.

One professor even called the calendar reforms"inhumane" to professors with hectic family lives.

"We all have quality of life issues to thinkabout," said Professor of Sociology Theda Skocpol."We all have to give and take, and this was alltake and no give."

Professor of Classics and History ChristopherP. Jones, who is a member of both the FacultyCouncil and the CUE, said he felt that thearguments presented for changing the calendar werefocused primarily on the "comfort level" ofstudents.

"Valid arguments for changing the wholestructure of the year need to be based onsomething more than perceived mental cruelty,"Jones said.

According to Skocpol, "The issue was presentedso exclusively from an undergraduate perspectivethat it was not a wise proposal to put forward."

"It went over like a lead balloon," Skocpolsaid.

Buell called the Faculty Council "a fairmicrocosm" of the Faculty at large, andacknowledged that the council vote was "quitedecisive."

"After this discussion and decision, it wouldnot be productive to pursue this in the nearfuture," Buell said.

But undergraduate demands have been shot downbefore and a new generation of students can beexpected to revive the issue, said Secretary tothe Faculty Council John B. Fox Jr. '59.

Buell also said he expects to hear more fromundergraduates on the subject.

"I would not be surprised if the UndergraduateCouncil continues to express that calendar reformis an issue of importance to a lot of theirconstituents at CUE meetings," he said.

But Undergraduate Council representatives saidthis week that they see few avenues by which theycould pursue the issue now.

"We were apparently so summarily dismissed thatI don't know what we would do now," saidChristopher J. Garofalo '94, who began draftingthe calendar reform proposal during his tenure aschair of the Undergraduate Council's studentaffairs committee.

"I'm very disappointed in the Faculty Council'sdecision, and quite surprised that they came to itso quickly," Garofalo said. "But it seems clearthat they don't care what undergraduates think andwon't consider this again."

Garofalo called the Faculty "stubborn" and"selfish" in their rejection of the plan, whichwas the product of months of negotiation betweenstudents and Registrar Georgene B. Herschbach.

"We were willing to bargain and sacrifice inorder to get this proposal into a from where itcould pass in CUE," Garofalo said. "And no oneever total us not to bother."

But Jones said the arguments against calendarreform presented in Wednesday's Faculty Councilmeeting echoed opposition to the proposaloriginally voiced in CUE.

"While there had been some support from Facultyin CUE, most of the pressure was from students andthe majority of people in favor in CUE wasslight," Jones said. "I certainly was not one whochanged my mind.