Curriculum Reform? Or Is the Issue Dead?

"Very little curriculum reform ever seems to get done at Harvard. Perhaps that is because Harvard is too educationally conservative to be budged. Perhaps it is because the advances are dwarfed by the difficulties that always remain. Perhaps it is simply one more case of people caring too little to be effective." (Educational Resources Group)

NUMEROUS EXPLANATIONS can be offered for the "eerie" complacency which pervades campuses across the nation. The mysterious contagion has infected every aspect of life within the Harvard community, from politics to curricular reform.

Interest in curriculum reform--on the uprise around the time of the strike of 1969--has steadily waned during the years since Cambodia and Kent State. The absence of interest in educational progressivism becomes more striking when one considers the abundance of untapped resources and opportunities within the Harvard community.

People Switchboard, a project to close the ever-growing gap between students and Faculty, and to promote curriculum reform, has faced since its inception the bureaucracy which is inherent in all universities.

The problem, however, is of a more deeply rooted nature. The University's support--both philosophic and financial--is essential to the success of People Switchboard. But active student interest is necessary to attain the Administration's backing and the eventual implementation of progressive educational goals. Such student initiated support has been minimal.

Lack of student involvement in People Switchboard does not necessarily mean that students reject the project. The absence of student support can be more accurately attributed to the apathy which has become the rule on the majority of America's campuses.

IN THE AFTERMATH of the strike of 1969 the University reiterated its commitment to educational reform. Ernest May, dean of the College, saw the anger and frustration which pervaded the undergraduate body. He believed that curriculum reform was long overdue and proceeded to take steps to correct the error.

In November 1969, May recommended the creation of study groups which would explore possibilities of curriculum reform. The House, he thought, had been long neglected as a medium for promoting educational change.

May institutionalized all dissent into four groups by establishing student-faculty subcommittees: the Committee on Houses and Undergraduate Life (CHUL), the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities (CRR), the Committee on Student and Community Relations (CSCR), and the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE).

About a year ago, the 30 students, who were elected to choose from among themselves the five student members of the CUE, incorporated themselves into the Educational Resources Group (ERG). The group created itself to investigate possibilities of educational reform.

In April 1971, two members of the group proposed that a center be founded to "serve as clearinghouse for information concerning educational opportunities in the Harvard community."

THE PROJECT was conceived following the institution of full-credit, semester length Independent Work to replace Independent Study. The project's founders realized that students who wished to do Independent Work would have difficulty finding the right advisors to approve and broadly supervise their projects. It was clear that students needed greater contact with faculty members and better access to University resources.

People Switchboard developed out of the ERG's conviction that Harvard is packed with educational resources and opportunities, but that these are too often "unnoticed, generally unpublicized, and almost never encouraged." Specifically, the ERG saw the need for "much more effective communication between faculty and students concerning their mutual interests, in order to relay the kind of information that no single advisor or tutor can store."

A summer report submitted by the founders of People Switchboard, Daniel Gensler and John Farago, outlined the metamorphosis of the project. "Originally we planned merely to solicit and present information about faculty interests to students. To this end, we sent out a questionnaire to all Corporation appointees in Arts and Sciences. The response made it evident that our initial goals were far too modest in light of the extremely positive tone of the repliers. We found that there are needs that are shared among faculty as well as students, needs that are now in such sharp focus that they demand immediate attention. Further, the response indicated that there is a large amount of untapped human resource at Harvard which, given the proper structure, can satisfy at least some of these needs."

GENSLER AND FARAGO, and the people in the Office of Tests, where the two had set up their temporary summer headquarters, were amazed by the response of 500 people to the extensive five-page questionnaire. The response enabled Gensler and Farago to collate data available nowhere else in the University. They established a cross-indexed file system which describes hundreds of interests of faculty members and other holders of Corporation appointments, along with the extent to which these people are willing to work with students within the innovative structures which now exist. The Switchboard is now equipped to help students find sponsors for Independent Work projects, special concentrations, tutorials and non-credit seminars. To facilitate the use of these academic structures. People Switchboard is prepared to provide information and advice regarding the relevant procedures and regulations. In the future it plans to develop files on student interests and involvements, corresponding to those of faculty members, in order to help those of like interests find each other.

MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, as a result of the feedback from the questionnaire, the concept of People Switchboard changed in the eyes of its founders. Gensler and Farago felt an obligation to those who had returned the questionnaire. They began to categorize workshops and seminars which many people, especially teaching fellows, graduate students, and holders of non-teaching appointments (librarians, research fellows, honorary associates and administrators) had expressed interest in teaching. They compiled a list of about 100 courses not offered in the University.

"Results from the questionnaire reflect a widespread pattern of frustration of interest in teaching due to both lack of initiative and unfamiliarity with established academic procedures," wrote Gensler and Farago. "This is not merely an expendable waste, but accounts in large measure for the unfortunate distancing of faculty and students at Harvard."

"Certain directions are suggested by this initial response. The clearinghouse which we originally envisioned has now become not merely necessary, but also clearly feasible."

As an overview, these results call for a strong student-run student-faculty communication network which would coordinate information and serve as a link between the various elements of the University community. Such a network can provide among other things a useful medium for the growth and expansion of innovative courses and structures."

And so the philosophy of People Switchboard changed. No longer was the Switchboard a mere advisory organ. It had now become an organizational proponent of experimentation as well.

In a letter to the then Dean Bok, Gensler and Farago wrote, "The multitude of suggestions that would require structural change emphasizes the need for experimentation as a legitimate part of the College." They proceded to outline their four-point thesis:

*The Houses should become more like the academic communities they were intended to be, with far more contact between students and faculty.

*More interdisciplinary approaches need to be offered within the existing curriculum and investigated for their educational value.

*Applications of academic disciplines to other fields of knowledge and to social problems should be supported.

*Scholarship must not be sacrificed in the attempts to achieve social relevance, to establish interdisciplinary approaches, or to satisfy the demand for more courses.

THE NEW PHASE II STRATEGY was put forward by the two founders in the belief that innovation at Harvard had usually been enacted without the pilot testing necessary to judge a plan's feasibility. The two believed that Independent Study had been instituted in the sixties without the adequate review which might otherwise have cast doubts on its chances of success and led to refinements in the program. They sought to find some structure through which experimentation could become normal procedure prior to permanent institution.

For Gensler and Farago, the Phase II emphasis on experimentation is a radical program to help Harvard become self-conscious about its teaching. They advocate structuring innovation in the form of an "education laboratory" with evaluation necessarily built into the innovative programs.

Gensler and Farago set out to obtain for People Switchboard philosophic support and financial backing within the Administration. After completing the file catalogue at the end of the summer, the two founders went to Bok to discuss the success of their questionnaire, the information center they had nurtured from birth, and their idea of experimentation as an integral part of educational reform. Bok suggested that they work with Steve Farber, his right hand man in curriculum reform. With Farber's aid, People Switchboard received from Dean Whitlock access to $1500 of the $2500 Dean's Discretionary Fund which was endowed by the Class of '26. Dean Richard Leahy and Frank Lawton of the office of dean of the Faculty made available the unused, unfinished north end of the Stoughton Hall basement at the special "discount" rent of $700. Fluorescent fixtures were installed through buildings and grounds. Whitlock provided no cash as such for People Switchboard. He permitted the following to be charged to his fund:

*two work-study coordinators ($300 each)

*the cost of rent

*the cost of a local telephone

He further granted permission to internalize the following costs into Dean Whitla's budget: operating expenses, office supplies, postage, copying and questionnaires, Whitla, director of the Office of Tests, had provided the money necessary for the original questionnaire sent to Corporation appointees. Whitlock promised that if part of the $1500 ceiling remained, the money would be available for the renovation by students of the project's headquarters in Stoughton.

Thus, Whitlock had taken the responsibility in the bureaucracy for People Switchboard

Stoughton basement became rapidly transformed into the stereotype student-renovated dungeon--daglo-painted and well cluttered with wall hangings. People Switchboard had finally become a physical reality.

However, the struggle for survival had only begun. As their funds grew smaller, Gensler's and Farago's futile endeavors to attain adequate monetary support grew more frustrating. They soon became angered by their roles as fund-raisers. A memorandum dated January 7, 1972, regarding the future of People Switchboard, was sent to President Bok, Dean Dunlop, Dean May, Dean Whitlock and Steve Farber. The memo--co-authored by Farago, Gensler, Louise Nemschoff and Jim Kessler--stated, "We have come to a critical point in the evolution of People Switchboard." The letter explained the necessity for the continuation and extension of the advising and information services and the need for a committee to implement and evaluate educational innovation. The four seniors--who had devoted much time to creating, manning and guiding the Switchboard in its first semester of operation--sought funding and official recognition. In short, the Administration's commitment to the continuation of People Switchboard.

The most recent budget for operation of the Switchboard is assessed by its founders at $13,700. This includes a salary for a full-time coordinator.

When the assessment was made, three options were open. The Switchboard could continue as it had on the original $1500, which was rapidly being exhausted. This action, or rather non-action, would inevitably lead to the death of the project in June. The second possibility was to reconfront Bok in an effort to attain University financial support, a request which Bok had already rejected. These first two options were ruled out.

The third possibility was money from the College. An attempt to hide the requested funds in another budget of the College, for which money had already been allotted, is still being made.

Amidst all the administrative cat and mouse play which unfortunately left the ball resting in Whitlock's lap. Gensler and Farago resigned from People Switchboard, as pledged, and with the exception of a bare minimum of publicity work, they ceased to work in any major capacity on the project. The two seniors were no longer willing to continue their major effort unless they could be assured by the Administration that the project had a future in Harvard College. Following his resignation, Gensler told Whitlock that continuing to man the Switchboard as they had would be like "beating a dead horse." "Why keep it around now if it's going to die later?"

The Administration should give full financial support to People Switchboard. Commitment to educational reform is part of Harvard's responsibility as an institution which enjoys respect in progressive academic circles. The Administration must realize that Harvard inherently possesses enough untapped, competent human resource to make broader approaches possible without preventing faculty and students from engaging in traditional scholarship.

Interest in education at Harvard is exactly what its students, faculty and Administration should be into. Interest in education at Harvard is precisely what People Switchboard is into