Say No to the UC’s Proposed Calendar Reform

To the editors:

I am horrified that the possibility of significant calendar reform (“Vote Yes On Calendar Reform, editorial, Apr. 18) can be contemplated without a full and informed discussion in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, where it is well known that a wide range of opinion obtains on this subject. That the Undergraduate Council could suggest that student opinion and a decision of the Governing Boards serve to settle this matter in favor of the Council’s own proposal fails to take into account that faculty have fully as much at stake in the calendar discussions as do students. There are some, and I count myself among them, who think that our calendar with its January examinations actually poses some pedagogical advantages. The fact that our calendar does not conform to those found in other places is hardly reason in and of itself for change, and I will need to hear a great deal more about the “mental health” argument before I can take it as a serious reason for change. And while we are speaking of quality of life issues, what happens in that remarkably fecund period between Thanksgiving and Christmas when plays, concerts, dinners, and all of the exuberance of fall term extracurricular life have added to it both reading period and final examinations? And what do we do with January? Surely, no one takes seriously the saving of fuel and electrical costs, and The Crimson itself recognizes the liabilities inherent in so-called “JanPlans.”

There are pedagogical matters to be considered in any proposed calendar change, and these are matters that concern faculty. We should not be presented with a fait accompli, but we should insist upon a formal process of consideration and review, the same kind of quality debate that would be given to any proposed reforms in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. As it is now mid-April, and we as a faculty do not operate with the same apparent efficiency as the Undergraduate Council, the matter of calendar reform should await another academic year, a new Dean of the Faculty and President, and a period of scrutiny and discussion. Anything less that this does violence to the way deliberative bodies deliberate. The Governing Boards would be well advised to take into account the formal views of the faculty before they endorse the proposal that has been sent to them by the Undergraduate Council. If change is to come, let it come as a result of honoring a process that takes the faculty and its views seriously. Plebiscites and diktats are not the best way to get things done in an academic community.

The writer is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals.