News

Harvard Alumni Email Forwarding Services to Remain Unchanged Despite Student Protest

News

Democracy Center to Close, Leaving Progressive Cambridge Groups Scrambling

News

Harvard Student Government Approves PSC Petition for Referendum on Israel Divestment

News

Cambridge City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 Elected Co-Chair of Metropolitan Mayors Coalition

News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

PROLOGUE

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

"Why compulsory attendance at classes?" Among thoughtless students and hasty enthusiasts, as well as among those sincerely interested in college problems, that query has grown daily more frequent. The prospect of a college without monitors seems now like a utopian vision; yet other institutions have been known to survive without them, and the idea of making attendance voluntary has not only been considered here already, but has been put to an actual test at least once during the last half century.

With increasing agitation, and an evident restlessness among undergraduates in regard to the question, it must soon be recognized formally. At present there is little certainty that a change is desirable, still less that one is feasible. In the hope of reaching some conclusion--either to suggest a definite reform, or to discover why the present system is best--the CRIMSON intends to print from time to time editorials discussing the question from various angles. It is not a simple matter of "yes" or "no", for it involves many minor parts of the Office mechanics: such as the method of taking attendance, the so-called "cut-pro", the Dean's List; as well as several larger considerations, such as the value of lectures themselves, examinations and quizzes, the responsibility of the College toward the student, and finally the prospects of the Tutorial System. Each of these matters must be taken up separately, and the whole problem approached with an open mind.

Meanwhile, the legend of how compulsory chapel was abolished some thirty years ago, is a useful parable to remember. Three times the Faculty voted to make the service voluntary; twice their motion was thrown down by the Governing Board, once through the hostility of no less a person than Emerson. When it came before the Board for the third time, Phillips Brooks was its chief antagonist; but he agreed, open-mindedly, that if the earnest students were shown to favor it, he would withdraw his objections. Their opinions, vigorously proclaimed, proved unanimous; and he was quick to help bring about the change. Perhaps the present case has little analogy, but, at any rate, the discussion will lead nowhere unless the undergraduates express their thoughtful opinions.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags