Legalism in the Dean's Office: I

The recent dispute between Dean Watson and the Young Progressive illustrates perfectly the consequences of rigid application of rigid rules. It proves again that administrative legalism does not provide the proper atmosphere in which to carry on student activities.

Why do the Rules for Undergraduate Organizations require every recognized group to have at least two faculty or alumni advisers! The theory behind this requirement is much the same as the theory behind inoculation. Advice, like inoculation, can be very helpful and it cannot do any harm. There are those who insist that groups should be on their own and that advisers corrupt students' independence; but there is nothing under the present setup to prevent a group from ignoring the advice tendered it, and even neglecting to ask advice. All this is left up to the groups themselves.

An excellent theory, you say! But there is some reason to believe that the Young Progressives may lose their charter if they cannot find two men to advise them. Young Progressives being what they are, and McCarthy being what he is, it is not surprising that few men will jump at the chance to advise the YP's. But why should the Young Progressives themselves be denied the privileges of Harvard because they cannot find two men to give them advice that they will be perfectly free to reject! In cases of this sort, the Deans' Office, after trying to persuade some faculty members or graduates to undertake the job, should itself step in and perform the simple functions of adviser. If advisers are to be considered absolutely essential for undergraduate groups, then the Deans' Office should make quite sure that no group is left out because it cannot find any. It should be precisely the least popular causes, the groups least likely to find advisers, that the Deans should be the most jealous to protect. The idea of disbanding the YP's for lack of advisers should not even be entertained.

And yet Dean Watson has indicated that such an action is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Since he has not yet acted, and since he has been generous to the YP's in allowing them time to seek advisers, we cannot accuse him of having a consuming desire to destroy the organization. But he has not displayed any fundamental dislike of the idea that the group should be broken up if it cannot find advisers. The forced disbanding of the YP's is still possible, though not likely. And the very fact that it can be considered a possibility is a sorry commentary on the legalistic approach to rules for undergraduates. (The question of the YP membership lists will be the subject of the second part of this editorial, which will appear on Monday.)