Justice for All

As one of the few classes that attracts students from across all concentrations, Moral Reasoning 22, “Justice,” has become part of this university’s tradition—the quintessential Harvard class on moral and political philosophy. Owing to its rarefied position among Harvard courses, this year’s Justice class set two new precedents. It became the course with the highest enrollment of all time at the College, and it imposed a cap limiting the class to just over 1,000 students and generating a sizable waitlist. As Harvard’s flagship course, such a cap can and should be avoided in the future.

The implementation of the cap effectively cut shoppers out of the course. The sheets for sectioning were handed out only to students in class at the Wednesday lecture, meaning students shopping other classes on Wednesday lost their spots. Sectioning forms for Justice should have been available all day in an accessible spot, making it possible for absentee shoppers to secure a spot in the course.

Looking ahead, however, the format of Justice lectures should allow for infinite expansion at least of the lecture portion of the course. Unlike with a seminar or conference course, allowing students on the waitlist to enroll does not marginally detract from the learning experience of a class already geared for a mass audience. What are 200 more students in a class already formatted for over 1,000?

To solve the problem of physical space—Sanders’ capacity is 1,000, and, thanks to auditors, late students are routinely turned away—Justice could be simulcasted to other lecture halls. The class could still retain its in-class participatory component by locating microphones in those rooms as well. Alternatively, tapes of Justice lectures could simply be made available after every class. The concern that routine taping would dampen participation should not be taken seriously. It is a bitter irony that students taking the course through the Harvard Extension School are virtually guaranteed space in the course because they are able to watch the lectures on video. Participation in a class of 1,000 is already a relative term. And, with the debut of an online blog on which Sandel, students, and Teaching Fellows (TFs) regularly post, participation has become easier than ever.

Real participation happens in sections, which will have to grow as well. This year, TFs teaching only one section should be encouraged to take on another in order to pull students off the waitlist. Next year, advanced planning can increase the number of qualified TFs.

It should be relatively uncomplicated to ensure that all interested students can take Justice in the future. Ultimately, though, the systemic size problem Justice is encountering now can be traced to Professor Sandel’s own mercurial decision making. At the beginning of 2003’s Justice class, rumors swirled that this would be Sandel’s last turn at the podium, and the same thing is happening this year. Rumors like these swell class numbers to Cher Farewell Tour heights. Sandel should be firm about his future plans to teach the course, so that students can plan their class schedules logically. Ideally, the course would be taught every year, without fail. To allow for this, Sandel could recruit another lecturer to teach the course when he cannot.

With over 1,000 students at the College and 150 students at the Extension School enrolled in Justice, it’s clear which course is ascendant above the rest. As the top Moral Reasoning Core among a meager field, and the potential to be the top Harvard College course among a field of giants, Sandel has a duty to open Justice to all comers, regardless of the cost.