What We Can Learn From the Grading Ordeal

In the dining halls and on Sidechat, the faculty subcommittee on grading’s recent proposal is on everybody’s mind, and for good reason — students care about decisions that impact them.

So far, both a report and a subsequent proposal have been shared with students and faculty, detailing the extent of grade inflation and presenting solutions to counter it. Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh then scheduled two town halls to give the Harvard community a chance to weigh in on the possible policies.

While controversial decisions have historically been made with minimal student input, presenting concrete policy changes and listening to student and faculty feedback is a move in the right direction for future administrative actions.

Decisions at the College tend to be made through a top-down approach with little room for student input. The decision to close the Harvard College Women’s Center and Office for BGLTQ Student Life, for instance, was marred by confusion, and transparency was severely lacking.

Closing inclusion-based centers is not the sole example. When the Student Activities Fee was made mandatory and increased by $250, it was announced via email without time for community deliberation or input.

Evidently, administrators rightly viewed those changes as significant enough to warrant a community-wide email detailing their implementation. I agree with them — whether or not many students must pay an extra $450 per year is not an immaterial change. Likewise, whether or not campus centers are open to support students matters, yet this change also came quietly, and without a stated rationale.

For major decisions, members of the Harvard community should have some way to voice their grievances or support to the faculty in power. The transparency around the grading proposal provides a model for doing just that.

When provided with detailed reports and evidence to justify decisions made by upper-level administrators, students can at least get a sense of how to adapt to coming changes and know what direction the administration is moving in, even if we view it as misguided. Furthermore, after students are informed of potential changes, there ought to be a forum for student input — as there has been for grading.

Discussion between administrators and community members is especially important when the majority of the student body views decisions as unwise. Giving members of the Harvard community a microphone and an audience at town halls allows our diverse voices to be heard, which increases understanding of an issue from all sides. I was present at the first of the two grading town halls, and I was heartened to see substantial student turnout and strong arguments from the community.

Critically, this method only holds true if administrators take students’ voices seriously, and incorporate feedback into policy considerations. Cynics may say the administration hears our voices but is unlikely to heed them. We must believe that it will.

However, if we are honest with ourselves, the intent of this particular policy is not to doom our futures. An effort to hold public forums is clearly a step in the right direction, and if administrators truly did not care to hear student concerns, they would have no need for such discussions. If administrators are willing to hear us, we must let ourselves be heard — and act with respect.

I am not arguing that every minute decision should be made through committee reports and lengthy town halls. This would make the University considerably less efficient and create an unnecessary lag. However, major decisions that substantially affect the lives of students and faculty should have the level of community input exemplified in recent weeks.

Students deserve the ability to voice their concerns and to know what will happen to their school in advance. Once we are granted this responsibility, it is up to us to participate.

At the very least, show up to the next town hall.

Oliver E. Nathan ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Canaday Hall.