On the Map

When a top level Harvard committee admits the University may have made a mistake, it's a good idea to watch what happens next. Last week, the Committee on Educational Policy made such an admission indirectly, when it set up Donald C. McKay's special committee on Geography. No one can predict what this group will suggest, nor what will happen to its recommendations, but it's a pretty good bet that something will be done to patch up last year's hasty hatcheting of a vital field.

The arguments in favor of a Geography department at Harvard have been explained before. In addition to fact that many Federal and international organizations call for trained geographers to help straighten out their problems, the field was one of the first divisions of the University to adopt the principles of general education, even before the GE program was born. Geography, as its friends claim, may still be the best vehicle for teaching the social sciences.

But the administrative side the Question of Geography at Harvard is more important than the educational. With practically no warning, all nonpermanent appointees in Geography were dropped by the University last spring. Faced with this large hole in the teaching staff, the faculty voted to eliminate Geography as a field of concentration. Then came excuses Harvard can't have everything; must economize; better no department than a too-small one. There were counter arguments: Harvard's Geography staff was as large as corresponding departments in other Universities; the Geographical Institute was a big positive asset. Then the administration pulled the "no comment" shade down on the whole mess.

The whole thing is out in the open now, and the new committee is talking a look-see. Even if the group doesn't revive Geography it can at least give the field a decent burial.