Academic Freedom
I was appalled by Lincoln Caplan’s report (“Academic Freedom and Free Speech,” September-October, page 32). Robert Post’s theories are reactionary and simply wrong in their characterization of the activity of research and learning on a university campus.
We read: “Because of the standards that guide each academic discipline, tenured scholars have the authority to veto the ideas and speech of untenured scholars and students if they don’t meet those standards.” This authoritarian vision of academic work does not reflect actual practice—and it’s a good thing, too, because if it did we would never make real progress in research. The new generation carries a subject forward, beyond the ken of “tenured scholars” with “authority.” The hierarchical model Post posits is the old Soviet model of academia.
This purports to be an article about free speech and academic freedom. In Caplan’s words, Post asserts: “On campus, there is freedom to discover, develop, and distribute ideas in pursuit of knowledge and diffuse it in education. In the public sphere, there is freedom to debate and deliberate about ideas in expressing and responding to others’ opinions.” This encapsulates a discredited account of education. Knowledge is not “diffused” in education. Students are not jars of water in which the salt of knowledge can be dissolved. Learning happens when the learner commits to a belief and strives to defend it. Expression of opinion is key to the process.
The arguments put forward uncritically in this article attempt to construct a theoretical framework for administrative action to keep politics (that is, “opinion”) off campus. It is disheartening to see such retrograde and dangerous perspectives presented uncritically in Harvard Magazine.
Haynes Miller ’70
Professor of Mathematics Emeritus, MIT
Newton, Mass.
In the very interesting piece on Robert Post’s scholarship, Richard C. Atkinson is quoted stating that “a professor cannot rely on the First Amendment to protect him/her from the judgment of colleagues that his/her research or teaching is professionally inadequate...,” presumably to emphasize the self-policing culture governing academia’s determination of “distinctive competencies essential to the functioning of the modern university.” Further on, Erwin Chemerinsky observes, “Either there is complete protection for the expression of all ideas and views, or there is an orthodoxy of belief.”
Given the 9:1 (perhaps even higher) ratio of leftist professors to conservative professors across American university campuses, it is ever more difficult to imagine the former (Atkinson’s) assurance being reliably enforced, which has led us to the sad reality that it is the latter half of Chemerinsky’s either/or proposition we now face.
Andrew St. Pierre ’83
Hamilton, Mass.
Lincoln Caplan’s attempt to explain the opinions of Robert C. Post and his friend Erwin Chemerinsky about intellectual freedom unfortunately left me both confused and even rather angry.
Caplan’s claim that Post makes a distinction between the academy’s obligation to protect freedom that leads to knowledge but not the public’s right to express opinion is remarkably unclear, especially as Post seems to support discussing speech that helps students prepare for opinions that they will have to deal with in the wider world. Specific examples would help a lot: at exactly what point does “opinion” become the nemesis of “knowledge”?
Closely related is Post’s apparent assertion that tenured faculty have the authority to “veto” the assertion of any untenured professors and students with whom they do not agree. Both groups must have the right to appeal unfairly made decisions.
My own view is that (a) college libraries should at the very least offer computer access to all ideas however obnoxious, (b) colleges may refuse to host speakers whose divisive contentions threaten our attempts to build a comfortable learning community, particularly for undergraduates, and (c) all faculty and students must have the absolute right to appeal arbitrarily made decisions.
This all too brief summary of my views, of course, is also subject to a vigorous debate. I look forward to a deeper and more detailed discussion.
Peter K. Frost ’58
Schuman Professor of International Studies Emeritus, Williams College
As erudite as the article on “Academic Freedom and Free Speech” is, it misses the point as relates to recent events at Harvard. The problem at Harvard—and most campuses—is not speech, but conduct.
Impermissibly setting up tents and camping out is not speech, it is criminal conduct: namely, trespassing. Hoisting a Palestinian flag onto a university flagpole in Harvard Yard is not speech, it is criminal conduct. Pushing and blocking other students is not speech, it is assault and battery. Screaming in a bull horn is not speech, it is nuisance and disturbance of the peace.
Note, these simple conclusions apply no matter whether you are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel; pro-climate or pro-industry; pro-choice or pro-life. They are viewpoint neutral.
One university that got things right—and kept things simple—was the University of Florida, led by President Ben Sasse ’94, who said tents are allowed on campus at only one time and one place: football Saturdays, for tailgating.
Last spring Harvard—like most schools—made the simple complicated. It should have enforced viewpoint neutral rules of conduct. Had it done so, most problems would have been avoided.
William Choslovsky, J.D. ’94
Chicago
The notion that public discourse, unlike academic debate, does not serve a truth-seeking function stands in contrast not just with the Millian-inspired jurisprudence of Justices Brandeis, Holmes, and later Brennan and the Warren Court, but also with the constitutional legacy of Presidents Jefferson and Madison. As Jefferson famously proclaimed in his first inaugural address, rebuking the infamous Sedition Act of 1798, “If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Academic inquiry is governed by professional norms but does not hold a monopoly on the quest for truth.
Charles G. Kels ’00
San Antonio
Lincoln Caplan’s article reminded me of a conversation I had with a student toward the close of the last century in the cafeteria at Middlesex Community College in Bedford. The subject was freedom of speech, and he summed the whole thing up succinctly: “Your classroom is not a democracy.”
Exactly right.
Jane Arnold, A.L.B. ’85, M.T.S. ’92
Pawtucket, R.I.
I enjoyed Mr. Caplan’s essay contrasting academic freedom and freedom of speech. However, the comparison goes far beyond the traditional “apples vs. oranges” argument. They are entirely separate entities and fruits from different trees.
I am surprised that none of the legal minds have mentioned the word “contract”…I searched. The faculty of Harvard and any university are employed under written and implied contracts. They will teach, research and administer according to guidelines and subject to review by “tenured scholars (who) have the authority to veto the ideas and speech of untenured scholars and students if they don’t meet those standards. In this institutional sense, all that speech in search of truth is not equal.” Ultimately, academic freedom is judged and limited by the Harvard Corporation…, and my diploma is granted by the permission of this body, which regulates its seal of approval.
Freedom of speech is granted by the U.S. Constitution. There is also a contract that binds citizens, that of the “social contract,” whereby individuals obey certain laws. [The article] comments, “Because of their different purposes—one safeguarding self-government; the other protecting education and advancement of knowledge—those freedoms require ‘entirely different’ frameworks of regulation and protectionof speech,”according to Robert C. Post.
Universities have used the rubric of “free speech” to justify their interpretation of “veritas.” There is no such thing as free lunch, or free speech, for that matter. As Post states: “The university is not a democracy.”
Both principles are intrinsically valuable, but should not be confused.
Ronald M. Barton ’69
Richmond, Va.
Sometimes, the cover says it all. It depicts the (good) female academic trying to open the clamp on academic freedom and free speech, while the (bad) male businessman is shown attempting to close it...exactly the opposite of what is happening at Harvard. Alas, the game is rigged anyway, since your hapless artist drew a clamp that, thanks to the position of the handle, can never be fully closed. Or was that deliberate?
Josh Chernin, M.B.A. ’86
Petersham, Mass.
Editor’s note: The cover art was an illustration, not an exact rendering of any idea.
“Academic Freedom and Free Speech” immediately caught my attention, because I know that academic people who express a serious interest in psychotherapy as education—Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, dream analysis, psychic abilities, energy medicine and voodoo, the spiritual, Edgar Cayce, reincarnation, levitation, Richard Kieninger, or black mentalists—are terminated with extreme prejudice. (This abstraction from the Vietnam War fits perfectly, because of the ambiguities of abstract thinking.) Academic freedom is severely limited by a physicalist view which dominates the entire (accredited) academic community. The incompetence is not in the minds of the people who explore this “woo-woo” stuff, but in the minds of the people who think that “woo-woo” is a valid argument.
Robert Seaver Gebelein ’56
Durham, N.C.
I have no knowledge of law but I have some knowledge on culture. Robert Post, an expert among many fields, treats “culture” as if it were outside what he calls the “public sphere,” that is, the world of “opinion”, in short, the world of the “crowds,” which is where our democratic world functions. Culture has never been addressed within the sphere of academic freedom; on the contrary, it has always been totally subsumed under the economic and political aims of that period. For example, during the Cold War and, actually, before it, when the U.S. government was fighting against the Nazis in “The other Republics of the American Continent.” And I have two questions for Mr. Post. First, how would Mr. Post treat “The Marshall Plan of Ideas,” as explained by Martin Merson [J.D. ’33] in his book, The Private Diary of a Public Servant (1955)? Is Mr. Merson’s book within the field of academic freedom/ knowledge? Second, since Mr. Post has been a stellar professor at UCBerkeley, is Professor John Yoo [’89], who is at this same university, and who defended the “enhanced technique” of waterboarding, acting under Post’s view of academic freedom? In short, I am afraid that Mr. Post is embracing an authoritarian view regarding “Academic Freedom” and relegating what he considers to be “Free Speech” to the opinions of the crowds.
Maricler Mosto, Ph.D.
San Diego
As an activist and professor, I read the article with great interest. Though universities strive to create an atmosphere of academic freedom, in many cases, funding for centers, research, and professorial chairs in fact dictates the direction of the academic inquiry. I vividly remember the “debates” at Harvard and other universities in Boston during NATO’s illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999, where biased conferences/talks were organized that only presented one side of Yugoslavia’s civil wars. As a result, academia encouraged politicians to act in a way that destroyed international law, and the world has never fully recovered from this as we approach WWIII. That said, we as students and activists never disrupted the conferences and lectures in the 1990s. We only sought the opportunity to challenge the ideas and “facts” presented therein, which in some cases was allowed, and in other cases was not.
Today, students seek to disrespectfully shut down classes and disrupt lectures with protests and immature shouting in the classroom, and thus, they will not learn anything in university because they are triggered by ideas that they don’t like and which professors become afraid to discuss. (Why go to school then?)
I think our educational institutions are in crisis today as the entire mission of academia, which started from the creation of safe havens of intellectual endeavor and fair debate of ideas and preservation of knowledge, has been corrupted by the need to generate funding, overly political agendas, and the incestuous connectedness between centers of power and academia. Universities should strive to educate students and the public at large by creating an arena where ideas can be civilly debated without the fear of retribution, and then presented to the public and its leaders in a more finished form. When freedom of speech and money trump academic freedom, as it has in many cases, we all lose this ability to seek the best ideas for humanity, and also to restore dignity and civility within the public sphere of discourse because universities have not set a good example. This is dangerous.
Michael Pravica, Ph.D. ’98
Henderson, Nev.
I write as one with distinguishing experience with Robert C. Post’s position in the “Academic Freedom and Free Speech” article. Professor Post separates the two freedoms as being “intramural” (academic freedom as classroom and scholarly pursuits), and “extramural” (as in public debate, where one individual’s opinion is equal to another’s). In Post’s view, the former is distinctive in its own right, and not a subset of the latter. I strongly disagree.
With 57 years’ experience in civil rights litigation, and presently awaiting a Sixth Circuit, Federal Court of Appeals decision in a long-fought controversy over both “intramural” and “extramural” protections, I’m aware of Professor Post’s dichotomy. I find it mistaken.
Freedom of speech fully protects in both academic and public spheres. Academic freedom is an added (extra) layer of protection in academia. It is not separate from First Amendment rights.
Post’s illustration that a professor is unprotected in academia if she ventures into auto mechanics, while teaching political science, is a red herring. Academic freedom, under both traditional case law, and, more recently, in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard College, under Titles VI, VII, and IX, gives First Amendment protections both ways. A professor can both explain the reasoning behind Dred Scott, under academic freedom, and critique it in the classroom, as free speech. “Professional incompetence” will not entitle a university to regulate classroom speech any more than, say, a city can regulate unpopular speech in a public platform. Both are protected under the First Amendment and academic freedom. The latter is not subject to a university’s political whims, as Post implies.
The First Amendment safeguards speech on campus, as it does in the public sphere. It gives more protection on campus, because of subset case law on academic freedom—emphatically not less. Justice O’Connor’s language in Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College District is illustrative: “Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched. The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses. Intellectual advancement has traditionally progressed through discord and dissent, as a diversity of views ensures that ideas survive because they are correct, not because they are popular. We have therefore said that the desire to maintain a sedate academic environment does not justify limitations on a teacher’s freedom to express himself on political issues in vigorous, argumentative, unmeasured, and even distinctly unpleasant terms.”
Hon. John Lackey, M.Div. ’82
Lackey Law Office
Richmond, Ky.
I reflect on the recent article on free speech versus academic freedom, and the controversy surrounding campus protests, all of which brings back memories of turbulent years between 1967 to 1971, including one semester when classes were cancelled. I write having since become a teacher in Zen Buddhist tradition.
It strikes me that the question of “Academic Freedom” versus “Free Speech” circles around the question of truth. Is truth “knowledge” or “popular concensus”? It used to be that “God” was truth, as on my dollar bills (who uses them any more?) that say, “In God We Trust.” Or as in the church that still lingers at the center of Harvard campus. Now the question is, what truth brings us together in spite of our differences, including different views of “God” and “Truth”?
My thought is that science sees truth as a problem of correct observation. Zen sees truth as a problem of consciousness. Both agree that what gets in the way is “self” and its preferences. Science (and academics), as well as Zen practice, are disciplines to see things “as they are,” not as we might prefer.
But the irony is that as soon as we fixate on a thing or a doctrine and say ”This is it!” we have taken the position of “self” and its preferences! In this sense, “free speech” upholds the principle that no single doctrine constitutes “truth.” Not that we ever stop having preferences! Just that when we hold them in the larger context of connection, compassion for one another becomes possible.
And how about those demonstrators who nonviolently risk personal safety and convention for the sake of a cause? Aren’t we obliged to engage and not ignore them? Otherwise our own commitment to truth is in question.
Gendo Allyn Field ’71
Lebanon, N.H.
The purported distinction between freedom of speech and academic freedom is troubling in that it invokes a priestly caste of authorities (e.g. “tenured professors” with “veto power” over what is published [or said]).
Like an overly aggressive immune system, these authorities could easily become a threat to the free inquiry that they are supposed to protect. Such guardians of the walls of academia from wild-eyed barbarians spewing lies, ignorance, malicious conspiracy theories, etc., or from religious, state, or corporate authorities with grim ideological axes to grind, could themselves become enforcers of an orthodoxy or status quo that suppresses new but worthy ideas or, more subtly, channels research and inquiry in certain directions to the exclusion of others no less worthy. Authority of any kind is often at cross purposes with unfettered inquiry.
Conversely, not just in academia, but in the world at large, we often look to knowledgeable authorities to guide and enlighten us concerning matters in question or in dispute and verbally to “veto” erroneous or misguided views. And, as members of academia are at the same time members of the world at large, academic content cannot readily be separated from “secular.”
The alleged distinction between academic freedom and freedom of speech thus blurs and dissolves.
Daniel Brooks ’66
Watertown, Mass.
Reading
“A Right Way to Read” (September-October, page 23) makes important recommendations about options for school districts to consider when their efforts to implement curricula based on the science of reading aren’t generating the anticipated results. Unfortunately, it merely glosses over the reasons why districts need curriculum implementation coaches and literacy consultants in the first place, why current professional development opportunities are inadequate, or why districts confuse the concept of “the science of reading” with “phonics.”
The wave of publications rightfully criticizing the balanced literacy approach to reading instruction wasn’t just about the inadequate ways that students were taught how to read; they also highlighted the fact that an entire generation of teachers and reading specialists were instructed to rely on inappropriate teaching methodology, such as guessing words from a picture or the three-cueing method. Districts need consultants to teach the teachers how to teach, or how to implement structured literacy basics, because our teachers—while getting multiple degrees and certifications—were never actually instructed in the science of reading. This is also why a generation of teachers now needs to be re-educated completely—something that an hour-long professional development Webex most certainly cannot do, as the article clearly concedes.
The article bemoans “quick fixes over substantive change” in the same breath as it recommends that schools hire consultants to push into various classrooms. The article claims that schools need to “rely on best practices that educators have long known about” at the same time it laments lack of teacher knowledge—requiring more extensive and more comprehensive professional development efforts. The article claims that the recent wave of legislation focused on literacy best practices was a response to the post-pandemic’s Sold a Story radio series, while pointing out that legislative efforts to improve literacy, in places like Texas (and many others), date back to 2019.
This is a structural problem in higher education: awarding degrees to professionals who are unable to do their jobs, and who need fundamental retraining, which will then flow down to the students. It is not an easy problem to tackle: retraining for your degree while maintaining a full-time teaching job is indeed a recipe for burnout.
Olga O’Donnell ’03
Phoenixville, Pa.
I read your article on teaching reading. It reminded me of a book I read many years ago, by a junior-high teacher whose job was to get non-reading children reading. The trick she found was to fill her classroom shelves with anything in print she could buy at thrift stores, garage sales, etc. that might interest a student: auto mechanics, cooking, sports, etc. Then she told them to pick anything they wanted, and in no time, they were reading at grade level.
Margery (Marny) Ennis Elliott ’64
Champaigne, Ill.
Although Nina Pasquini’s article on different methods of teaching reading was of interest, I am disappointed that education specialists are not addressing the fundamental question essential to modern education, which is why would a student invest years of study in a slow and tedious form of communication when faster, more effective means are available at everyone’s fingertips? I refer to the cellphone age, when pictures (and videos) have become the default means of communicating.
When I ask my children (31 and 26 years old) what they have been up to, I want to see their pictures, not a 500-word essay. When I install a ceiling fan, I use YouTube, not an instruction manual. In a restaurant, a television grabs my attention (even without sound!) much more than I would like to admit.
In my youth (I was born in 1962), reading opened doors to wonderful worlds that were otherwise inaccessible. Stories fired my imagination. However, I believe that 90 percent of the words in the stories that I read were designed to paint a picture in the reader’s mind. Why read all those words if the picture can be transmitted instantly? Joyce Kilmer’s couplet (“I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree”) comes to mind. Poetry can now be replaced by beautiful photos that anyone can create using the power of today’s phones.
In a sense, I think reading (and especially writing) feel like an outmoded form of communication for today’s youth. I see many education experts bemoaning the decline in reading and writing skills while seeking ways to restore competence in these areas, but this, to me, seems like perpetuating Morse Code skills after Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone had been invented.
Instead of trying to restore a golden age of the written word, I think it is time for education policy experts to envision how education should be restructured to develop thoughtful, reasoning humans in an age that communicates largely via pictures. The age of the cellphone demands a paradigm shift in education. If school perpetuates a nineteenth-century emphasis on reading and writing, many students will become disillusioned with the entire educational process.
Steven G. Sogo ’84
Retired high-school chemistry teacher
Laguna Hills, Calif.
The marvel for my generation and my mother’s generation was that everyone learned to read in the first grade. I am 89 and my mother would be 115 if alive. We were educated in Pennsylvania. I think the reason for mass success was that there was no “theory,” only “practice,” and a variety of methods were used in each classroom. In my first grade we had phonics, flash cards, and see-say, every school day. Lots of drill. An even earlier generation used McGuffey’s Readers, containing stories and poems of interest to children, and printed with strategic wide spacings between words and beautiful illustrations, with good results. A certain percentage of today’s children will require reading instruction tailored to their individual needs, per written annual educational plans. That is where the federal law called “IDEA” (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) comes in. Now often forgotten, IDEA is about to celebrate its fiftieth anniversary, having been modeled on Massachusetts statutes enacted a few years earlier. My advice: less theory, more hard work during the school day, and application of federal and state special-education laws whenever mandated.
Anne Vohl, J.D. ’71
Reno
Thank you for bringing the topic of effective reading instruction to the attention of the wider Harvard community in Nina Pasquini’s “A Right Way to Read?” Like others, I was introduced to this issue by taking Jeanne Chall’s course in 1979, when the country was still in thrall to “whole language.” Her landmark work about the importance of phonics has stood the test of time, as has her insistence that “research in reading should follow the norms of science.”
Thanks to Chall and others, we know unequivocally that phonics is essential, but not sufficient. That’s a lesson demonstrated by the work in Mississippi that contributed to the state’s dramatic growth in reading achievement. I was fortunate to have a front row seat, given my role at the time as director of program strategy of the Barksdale Reading Institute (BRI), to work in close partnership with the Mississippi Department of Education. Over the course of a decade, the institute refined a structured approach to teaching reading that went to scale with the passage of the state’s literacy law in 2013. BRI, which closed in June 2023, has spawned several legacy projects to carry on the research-to-practice connections. These include a virtual weekly forum in which Harvard education professors such as James Kim, Young-Suk Kim, Catherine Snow, and Nadine Gaab, among other influential researchers, come together to discuss their findings and explore the science in areas of literacy far beyond phonics. The BRI teacher-training materials now live on ReadingUniverse.org, WETA’s comprehensive website offering teachers free, research-based tools and PBS-quality videos demonstrating how word recognition and language comprehension work together. I agree with Snow that “it’s not such a complicated thing to do.” And we know a lot about what works.
Kelly Allin Butler, Ed.M. ’79
Jackson, Miss.
As Dr. Kimberly Thompson of the Harvard School of Public Health explained in an interview with Children of the Code, “Not only do they face a great risk because it changes their quality of life, their length of life and everything about their lives…it costs us a huge burden.” This acknowledges that the individual cost associated with illiteracy is immeasurable. The one silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic is that it has spotlighted this long-standing issue, as demonstrated in the recent article “A Right Way to Read?” by Nina Pasquini. However, it is essential to recognize that many students struggled with reading proficiency long before COVID-19 surfaced. The illiteracy crisis has plagued our nation for decades. While helping students regain their pre-pandemic reading levels is crucial, it’s equally important to acknowledge that reaching those levels is only the beginning. The main priority is addressing the deep-rooted literacy issues that have persisted for years.
About 25 years ago, we began noticing just how many students were falling behind in reading, inspiring us to discover a solution that works. As Pasquini points out, learning to read is a deeply personal experience, as well as a social one, because each child faces their own challenges. Individualized, one-on-one tutoring is what gets them to succeed. The best method starts with a data-backed, diagnostic assessment that identifies where each child struggles. This allows the tutor to tailor lessons that address the student’s specific difficulties while focusing on the essential building blocks of reading: phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension. As Pasquini notes in her article, these facets of literacy are necessary for reading development. This approach is intensive and holistic and engages multiple senses as children build academic rapport with their assigned tutor. Of course, as Pasquini explains, effective tutoring requires well-prepared educators. Tutors must undergo rigorous training so they are able to deliver constructive lessons. Students who work with highly trained instructors and participate in these tutoring sessions show remarkable results. Just one hour a day, five days each week, can help a child gain an entire grade level in reading within six weeks. This method works for nearly all learners, including students with ADHD or dyslexia and those studying English as a second language. It is a proven solution that has the potential to turn the tide on the illiteracy crisis.
In the wake of the pandemic, parents and educators have become increasingly aware that schoolchildren everywhere in the US are suffering from illiteracy. Now that we have found a way to reverse this crisis, it is our duty to society to give these students the education they have been promised. Every child deserves the opportunity to achieve literacy. Let’s make this a reality for all of them.
Pamela Good
Cofounder and CEO, Beyond Basics
It was great to see the article on reading by Nina Pasquini, as well as the smiling photo of my former professor Catherine Snow. I was at HGSE when Jeanne Chall was still director of the Reading Lab and have done almost everything “reading” in the decades since. I can honestly say I have never seen anything that accurately represents our orthographic system until I learned of Structured Word Inquiry. I would direct you to the book Beneath the Surface of Words, by Sue Hegland, and would love to see something in Harvard Magazine or Harvard Ed. addressing this largely ignored but impactful work.
Miriam Vener Giskin, Ed.M. ’85
North Haven, Conn.
I was delighted to have Professor Jeanne Chall’s “pioneering research about the importance of phonics in literacy education,” and its influence on current understanding of reading and its challenges, noted by Pamela Hook, M.A.T. ’70, in “A Right Way to Read?”
I took Professor Chall’s course in the 1974-’75 year, as a first-year graduate student in “Human Development and Reading” at the Graduate School of Education. Fifty years later, the sentence with several letters written, inconsistently, in mirror-fashion that I saw at the beginning of the first class continues to inform my work. For the last 35 years my clinic has focused exclusively on assessments of learning challenges and strengths. The remediation plans I recommend for children who struggle learning to read are also influenced by what I learned tutoring a seven-year-old boy under supervision by one of Professor Chall’s teaching assistants.
Professor Chall combined teaching of research findings with examples of assessments and remediation plans which she had completed, and gave us the opportunity to tutor a child. These are all practices recommended in this excellent article, which I will ask my colleagues to read.
Elisabeth Saunders, Ed.D. ’79
Toronto
On Sociability
The article on Catherine Dulac’s research (“The Goodness of Being Together,” September-October, page 38) reminded me of a comment my mother made a few years before she died at 93 after 21 years of widowhood: “Nobody touches me anymore.” She lived alone with nearby relatives to help with chores she could not handle, but her three children lived out of state with the closest three hours away. We visited her three to four times a year, but she clearly missed the physical contact on a regular basis. Maybe we’re not all that different from the mice featured in the article!
Mike Clement, M.B.A. ’71
Birmingham, Mich.
Erin O’Donnell’s article about Catherine Dulac’s research on the hard-wired need that mice have for relationships with other creatures (“The Goodness of Being Together,” September-October, page 38)—and individual differences in that need—reminded me of Sandra Scarr’s doctoral dissertation at Harvard, almost 60 years before (Psychology and Social Relations 1965). Sandy (who was my own dissertation adviser at Yale in 1980), was the Mother of Behavioral Genetics. Her groundbreaking early work documented the genetic basis of the psychological trait of “sociability,” validating a similar continuum of individual differences in the importance that humans play in one another’s lives.
What eventually evolves into introversion/extraversion is a quality with notable heritability, present from birth, even though we now know it can be modified by environmental conditions, otherwise known as learning. I love when the same psychological phenomenon is validated by varying methods and perspectives, giving us a fuller understanding of innate characteristics, their trajectories, and their potential modification. I especially appreciated Dulac’s studies that documented the centrality of touch in motivation for closeness. Bravo to Harvard for the giants who continue to inspire generations of scholars, enlightening fields that cross-fertilize each other.
Roni Beth Tower, Ph.D., ABPP
Sleepy Hollow, N.Y.
I applaud the achievements of Catherine Dulac in finding the neurological basis of our instinctively avoiding social isolation. But really, duh!! I was 74 when the pandemic struck, and severely depressed for most of the ensuing year, despite living in two states where outdoor interactions were fairly easy. The cruelty of isolating people, especially older people, should have been obvious to the morons in authority.
Mimi Gerstell ’66, A.M. ’91
Vero Beach, Fla.
The Brain, Mapped
“Mapping the Human Brain” (September-October, page 10) was astounding—one of the most important articles in the magazine in quite a long time. Please continue to follow developments at Harvard on research being conducted in this area. Increasing our knowledge of the human brain is as important as mapping the universe or exploring the deepest of our oceans.
Paul A. Scripko, MCRP ’80
Austin
In the September-October issue, editor John S. Rosenberg’s comprehensive article about Harvard’s “discipline and decentralization” (“Own Goals,” page 5) could be a metaphor for Jonathan Shaw’s article on “Mapping the Human Brain” (page 10). The complexity displayed in both articles is mind-boggling [no pun intended]. Impacting the present Harvard maze of rights, rules, and disciplinary procedures are at least the following: Committee on Rights and Responsibilities, University bylaws, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the College’s Administrative Board, the Corporation, and the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance.
Shaw’s article tests us with analyzing the cerebral cortex, neurons, receptors, excitatory and inhibitory axons, glial cells, and synaptic connections. Pick your choice. The latter is probably the easier to comprehend.
Steve Susman ’57, J.D. ’60
Denver
Veritas and…?
After all the attention earlier this year to Harvard’s motto, one wonders how many diploma recipients have actually looked at the University seal thereon and noticed what it actually is. In the first year since the 1640s when Psalm 78 [“My people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth.”] was no longer part of the Commencement program, it speaks volumes that common reference, internally and in the national press, cites this ancient motto as a willfully truncated veritas. Look again. It’s veritas christo et ecclesiae. Dare we remember the (a.d. 1636) founding Puritans, the Learned Ministry, and the Vocation of it all? Check out the carved inscription on Johnston Gate.
It all suggests a modification of the famous comment of Harvard’s professor George Santayana: Those who do not remember history are condemned to [delete] it.
The Rev. W. Scott Axford, M.Div. ’88
Providence, R.I.
Disciplinary Reform
One question about “Own Goals” (7 Ware Street, September-October, page 5, on Harvard’s multilayered disciplinary systems), with the background of having attended the Law School during controversies over Critical Legal Studies: Is there sufficient cohesion among the faculty to undertake a successful appraisal/overhaul of the disciplinary system, or will it simply expose and exacerbate current fissures?
Tom Vollbrecht, J.D. ’86
Plymouth, Minn.
Reading John S. Rosenberg’s two-page history and analysis of Harvard’s actions and reactions prompted by student and faculty responses to the events in Gaza was both informative and persuasive. Evidence was presented without hyperbole and no punches were pulled. That his piece was the first article a reader encountered—a bully pulpit indeed—gave this cranky old alum renewed admiration for the magazine and for the University’s support of it.
Conn Nugent ’68, J.D. ’73
Washington D.C.
Parks Planning
Max Krupnick’s article on Bas Smets and his work to increase the favorable impact of nature on European urban park design and construction attracted my attention (“Parks for Tomorrow,” July-August, page 32).
Bringing Smets to Harvard to teach a studio course in ”Biospheric Urbanism” for the next four years to students at the Graduate School of Design appears a much-needed breath of fresh air blowing from the Old to the New World.
GSD has a close and long-term association with this subject—for almost 100 years! Professor Charles Eliot was the chief proponent and constant advocate from 1929 until the late 1990s on what became the Bay Circuit Trail and Greenway Project.
It’s understandable that the theoretical and practical roots of what Smets has to offer the students are primarily European. However, it would seem desirable for these courses to be accompanied by additional attention to the subject in Harvard’s own backyard—and the Bay Circuit is conceptually, historically, and, as of today, actually in Harvard’s backyard.
Alan F. French, M.B.A. ’58
Chairman and executive director, Bay Circuit Alliance, Inc. (1992-2012)
Andover, Mass.
Bias Task Forces
As an exercise in that old freshman favorite, Expository Writing, let me try to rewrite the following recommendation of the antisemitism task force, as quoted in “Combating Bias” (September-October, page 17):
“A]ntisemitism and anti-Israeli bias—like Islamophobia, anti-Arab bias, racism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia—are forms of hatred that have no place within the Harvard community,” rewritten as “[A]ntisemitism and anti-Israeli bias—like Islamophobia and anti-Saudi Arabian bias, racism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia—are forms of hatred that have no place within the Harvard community.”
What does it even mean to talk about having “bias” against a nation state? The usage is as meaningless as it is misleading. Try “anti-Asian and anti-Chinese bias” or “anti-Slav and anti-Russian bias.” Gibberish.
Opposing the actions of a nation state is hardly a form of hatred, particularly when the nation state in question, Israel, is carrying out the mass slaughter and dispossession of the Palestinian people.
Stephen Elliott ’71
Bridgewater, Mass.
Context in the Middle East
Arthur MacEwan (Letters, September-October, page 62) says one needs historical context to understand the Gaza war. While everyone benefits from more information, no context can justify or excuse what transpired on October 7—a carefully-orchestrated massacre of 1,200 men, women, and infants who were shot, raped, mutilated, burned alive, kidnapped, or paraded as trophies, all proudly videotaped by Hamas. No context enables us to understand the depravity of Hamas and other participating Gazans.
Nevertheless, the context: irrational Arab zeal to expunge Jews from Israel began long before 1967 and long before the official reestablishment of Israel in 1948. The 1929 Hebron massacre by Arabs of 67 Jews is but one example. Inspired by, among others, Hitler’s ally, the Grand Mufti, neighboring Arab countries attacked the nascent Jewish state to eliminate it following Britain’s partition of Palestine in 1947.
The players have changed but, sadly, not the “context.”
Mark I. Fishman ’67, J.D. ’70
Fairfield, Conn.
On October 7 last year, Palestinian terrorists attacked Israeli communities near Gaza and indiscriminately murdered, raped, mutilated, dismembered, and tortured anyone they could find. Shockingly, some members of the Harvard community couch condemnation with the qualification that the October 7 massacre had a “context” and would cite “the events of ’47-’48.” Here are the facts:
On November 29, 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of the Mandate for Palestine into independent Jewish and Arab states. Local Palestinian militia and then six regular Arab armies—openly expressing their aim of massacring the Jews—attacked. Though out-manned and out-gunned, the Jews fought back and turned away the invaders. It was a bitter victory: without exception, no Jews were left in areas such as East Jerusalem, conquered by Arab soldiers.
Instead of the truth, the canard that Israel planned and carried out a mass expulsion of Palestinians has become entrenched despite it being contraindicated by the Arab leaders at the time. Emil Ghoury, the head of the Arab Higher Committee, the supreme Palestinian Arab governing body, testified, “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem. “Israel did not cause the Arabs to leave,” Beirut Telegraph (September 6, 1948).
These historical falsehoods also conveniently cover up the catastrophic impact of Arab rejectionism before 1947. In 1937, the British recommended the “Peel Partition Plan” that would have given the 400,000 Jews (30 percent of the population) an independent state in only 17 percent of the land. The Jews, desperate to provide a haven for refugees, reluctantly agreed, but, despite the ludicrously favorable terms for their side, the Arabs were unyielding. “Neither one meter nor one more immigrant”—was how an Arab representative summarized the Palestinian position. The British caved in to the Arab violence. The results are well documented: Jewish immigration was ended, and millions were essentially condemned to death. Part of my family—from present-day Bosnia—had already purchased land in the Mandate but was barred from immigrating.
“From the land to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “By all means necessary” are the latest version of Palestinian “all or nothing” rejectionist ideology that has resulted in horrific suffering over the last hundred years. Only acceptance that both peoples, Jews and Arabs, have deep roots in the land; and that the realization of the right of each to self-determination—“two states for two peoples”—can realistically bring peace, justice, and dignity.
Alex Bruner, M.B.A. ’76
Boca Raton, Fla.
Why does Harvard Magazine succumb to the usage that describes the sequel to the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel as the “Israel-Hamas war”?
For example, in the September-October issue in the first paragraph of the Caplan article on “Academic Freedom and Free Speech” (page 32) and the second paragraph of the inset on the Ledecky Fellows (page 55). Interestingly, elsewhere you’re pretty clear on the causality: page 52, “[October]…when Hamas-led militants attacked Israel….”
However far back one goes in tracing this conflict, its latest phase undeniably began with action by Hamas. So if pride-of-place is to be given to the precipitating party in labeling the conflict, “Hamas-Israel war” would be the factually accurate choice.
Exploring the reasons why the “Israel-Hamas” usage has predominated in the press, including (perhaps unwittingly) in Harvard Magazine, might itself be worthy of your attention.
Stephen Poppel ’65, Ph.D. ’73
New York City
John Finley’s Successor
Obviously, John Finley was a scholar, lecturer, and housemaster without equal (Vita, July-August, page 30). I would like very respectfully to offer my gratitude to his Eliot House successor, Alan Heimert, who made a special effort to reach out to me. As a transfer student out of sync with my classmates and as a product of a segregated public-school system in north Louisiana, I spent my energies as an undergraduate trying to catch up. Alan Heimert included me in a soirée with a visiting professor and acknowledged me as a nascent scholar. His comment in the introductory lecture of his colonial literature course became the mantra of my teaching career: Follow your intellectual inclinations. My goal in my career was to nurture in my students the centrality of intellectual inclinations. I would be remiss if I did not here also quickly acknowledge two of the tutors/fellows in Heimert’s Eliot House. Paul Fry [Ph.D. ’74] and Donald Bacon [’62, Ph.D. ’71], formally in classes and informally in conversations, were immensely contributive to my development of higher-order reading and writing skills. Thank yous to the three. I can still see with affection Alan Heimert in his Sunbeam going to do an errand.
Elwin Sykes ’71, A.M. ’78
Brooklyn
Fairfield Porter
I’m writing you 13 miles “as the crow flies” from Fairfield Porter’s Great Spruce Head Island in Penobscot Bay, writing to applaud your article on Porter, H ’28, by Jane Borthwick. But I am very disappointed in the uneven quality of its three illustrations. The best, October Interior, 1963, could well have served as your largest, being the most characteristic of Porter’s mature style, glowing with color, contrast, light— just as it appears in John T. Spike’s excellent book on Porter.
Your other two reproductions, Roofs of Cambridge, 1927 and Self-Portrait in the Studio, 1948, offer images with badly washed-out color and limp tonal contrast. And the latter unfortunately stands as the dominant illustration in the article. Fairfield Porter’s work deserves better.
(For the record, my standards/prejudices—take your pick—were primarily formed as an art history major at Harvard and a painting major at Yale, B.F.A. ’61.)
Herbert Parsons ’59
Vinalhaven, Me.
Branding and Continuing Education
Julie Reuben’s article “Ego U” (March-April 2023, page 23) presents a compelling critique of the intense focus on branding within higher education, often at the expense of its educational mission. While Reuben addresses the dangers of this brand-centric approach, it is crucial to consider how Harvard might strategically enhance its Division of Continuing Education (DCE) to better align with the broader mission of higher education, as discussed in her article.
The Harvard Extension School (HES), a key component of the DCE, has faced scrutiny and skepticism regarding the legitimacy of its degrees and its place within the Harvard ecosystem, as detailed in an insightful 2021 article from The Harvard Crimson (“How Far Will Harvard Extend?” by Ashley R. Ferreira and Sophia S. Liang). This skepticism stems from concerns that the accessibility and openness of HES might dilute the prestige associated with the Harvard brand.
Furthermore, the perception of HES students as “faux-Harvardians,” as humorously critiqued in 2009 in another Crimson piece (“Avoid These Crazy Harvardians,” by Julia M. Spiro), highlights the challenges Harvard faces in expanding its brand. If not carefully managed, these perceptions could undermine the institution’s reputation. However, by addressing these concerns—such as reconsidering the naming of degrees to better reflect the rigor and focus of the programs—Harvard can simultaneously protect its brand while expanding access to high-quality education for adult learners. This approach would align with Reuben’s call for institutions to focus on societal impact over mere competition.
Unlike some of Harvard’s peer institutions, which do not differentiate between degrees earned through continuing education and traditional programs, Harvard clearly positions the Harvard Extension School degrees separately from its main avenues of learning. By aligning HES degree offerings more closely with those of its peers, Harvard could enhance the value and perception of its continuing education programs, reinforcing its commitment to educational equity while maintaining brand integrity.
Yet, this raises a deeper, more philosophical question about the purpose of education: Should institutions narrow their branding to preserve prestige and protect their core offering, or should they expand it to include a more diverse student body, thereby potentially increasing their value to society? Moreover, can this expansion add agility to an institution’s value proposition, allowing it to adapt to changing societal needs while maintaining its reputation for excellence?
Adult learners, who represent a growing and increasingly vital demographic in higher education, bring significant value to institutions. They are often motivated by specific career goals, a desire for upskilling, or personal enrichment, making them deeply invested in the outcomes of their education. Unlike traditional students, who may prioritize institutional brand, adult learners are more focused on the reputation and effectiveness of specific programs. This aligns closely with Reuben’s critique of branding in higher education; by emphasizing program quality and outcomes over institutional branding, Harvard can lead the way in redefining what it means to be a top-tier educational institution.
The DCE, through HES, has the potential to demonstrate that accessibility and prestige are not mutually exclusive. By improving support for HES students and enhancing the public perception of their achievements, Harvard can reinforce its commitment to educational equity, ensuring that all students—regardless of their entry point—are seen as integral members of the Harvard community.
In an era where the value of a traditional degree is increasingly questioned, Harvard’s DCE has the potential to be a powerful vehicle for reinforcing the institution’s role as a leader in both academic excellence and social responsibility. By nurturing and expanding the DCE, Harvard can both strengthen its brand and contribute meaningfully to the renewal of American higher education.
Subrato Sensharma, A.L.M. ’11
Springfield, Va
Errata
“History in Progress” (September-October, page 50) inadvertently mixed up the title of Richard Beck’s book, Homeland: The War on Terror in American Life. “Crimson Campaigners” (page 53) rendered the capitalization of the name of Nuriel Vera-DeGraff ’26 incorrectly. And in Montage, “Off The Shelf” lost the critical “h,” becoming the mysterious “Off the Self” (page 46). Our apologies.
