GSD's Urban Field Service: Publicly Praised and Privately Pressured

( The author is a second year architecture student at the Graduate School of Design. She has been active in the Urban Field Service-most recently, designing office and residence facilities for Project Place in Boston. )

THE URBAN Field Service was founded in February, 1968, by Chester Hartman, assistant professor of City and Regional Planning. In the past two years the UFS has undertaken approximately 40 community planing and design projects. In addition to future architects, landscape architects and planners, students from the fields of law, business, education, and social work have joined UFS teams to provide professional assistance to low-income communities. Over 200 students from Harvard and other universities have participated in such projects as creating alternate urban renewal plans to oppose BRA plans for the South End; devising strategics to bring low and moderate income families to Lexington; investigating alternatives to the proposed Master Plan for Holyoke; setting up a management corporation for low-income tenants of the Bromley Health project in Jamaica Plain; and designing playgrounds, a community center, and youth centers in various areas of Boston. Both community residents and students view the program as a highly successful professional and educational enterprise.

Public pronouncements within the Design School and the University praise the UFS. The Wilson Report, "The Community and the City," notes that UFS is "responding to... community needs as well as to educational needs within the School itself." (Here the University takes credit for good community relations generated by UFS.) A recent statement by Dean Kilbridge reads: "I believe the Urban Field Service is one of the finest programs in this school. " (original emphasis.)

Unfortunately, the public praise hides private harassment. An extended series of difficulties has threatened the success and existence of UFS:

Course credit in the department of city and regional planning is given only after a student's final work is approved. Participants in controversial projects are faced with the threat of being denied academic credit for their work.

Grading is problematic. A school-wide committee recommended pass-fail grading for UFS because of the nature of the course work. In the case of at least one project, the Planning Department faculty threatened to change some "pass" grades to B-, the lowest passing grade a graduate student can receive.

Catalog listings of GSD courses and announcements about studio options have never included UFS, although it is an official course. In addition to being hampered by lack of information, potential students are generally not encouraged to participate in Field Service projects by their academic advisers.

Funding for the UFS has been the subject of much dispute. Dean Kilbridge has stated that monthly UFS expenditures are "higher this year than last," as evidence of "generous" GSD support for UFS. In fact, because of re-shuffling of sources of support and staff salaries. UFS is receiving more GSD money this year, but less overall money. A major financial problem occurred when the Ford Foundation, which was considering granting support to UFS, was contacted by a member of the City Planning Department who disparaged the program and intentionally sabotaged the UFS funding. The Ford Foundation proposal chose not to fund UFS and the GSD was forced to assume additional UFS support as a result.

Faculty attitudes range from mild support to vehement opposition of UFS. To cite one instance of opposition, last semester I was told by Professor Zalewski of the Department of Architecture: "You are fooling yourself if you think you have learned anything by working on a UFS project this semester. If you want to work for these black people [the clients actually happened to be white] you should quit school. This work has no place in the School."

Staff of the UFS includes a director, an assistant director, and a parttime secretary. In December, Dean Kilbridge gave notice to Chester Hartman, the founder and director, that his contract as assistant professor of City and Regional Planning would not be renewed. Hartman left Cambridge for a trip to South America. While he was gone, Dean Kilbridge gave notice to the assistant director and secretary that they should look for other jobs, supposedly because of lack of UFS funds. He told them to close out all existing projects possible and to take no new projects.

Students in UFS protested the Dean's actions. The Dean announced to the GSD that he, the Dean, "supported" the UFS. He posted a carefully worded notice entitled "Save the Urban Field Service" which stated, as "facts":

Chester Hartman has not been " fired " as Director of the URBAN FIELD SERVICE. [ original emphasis. ] So far as I know, he intends to remain at the GSD in that capacity, for which he has a " specific corporation appointment. "...

For the first time the URBAN FIELD SERVICE now has a full-time assistant director, its own secretary, and its own off-campus office.

Not until several days later did the Dean actually offer Hartman the opportunity to remain as UFS director. Additional funds apparently were found, for no more was said about firing the rest of the staff. This incident constitutes a flagrant example of the way that the UFS itself, as well as its projects, is "supported" for some public relations purposes and condemned for others.

STUDENTS in the Graduate School of Design fear that the school's harassment of the Urban Field Service and Chester Hartman, its director, will destroy the program. The Design School is in a state of flux; curriculum reform is overdue. In contrast to the rest of the school, Field Service provides basic education for students who honestly wish to learn how to improve the urban environment. UFS must not be hounded out of existence, nor changed into something acceptable and non-controversial. UFS is an outstandingly successful program which deserves the full public and private support of the GSD and the University.