ACTA's Must-Reads

I am a deep believer in having a core curriculum or general education requirement (we seem to alternate between these two labels!) that aims at two purposes: 1. helps Harvard students share in a common base of knowledge that is useful for membership in an educated citizenry; 2. assures that students are familiar with a variety of disciplines such as scientific reasoning, math, economics, moral thought, literature, and the arts. I happen to believe that survey courses are a useful part of this mix, though not the only part (of course).

The most recent revision, moving from the Core to Gen Ed, was a useful but not perfect transition, in my opinion. I personally would have preferred a bit more rigor in the requirements. That said, I felt the discussion within the FAS was serious and the outcome worthy, on the whole. One danger, of course, is that the Gen Ed curriculum might slip, over the years, into becoming more of a buffet of random offerings. We should offer encouragement to those seeking to keep the program focused.

I think the university has three academic missions: to create, conserve, and impart knowledge. And it should pursue these in a way that leads to greater wisdom as well as practical skills. Both what Harvard teaches and how Harvard teaches will be affected by the two major trends of our time. The first is the advent of interactive digital networks, which transform the ways that information can be shared. The second is a related phenomenon: the increasingly global nature of culture, business, politics, and economics.

As a result, we will want to make sure that Harvard students are comfortable at the intersection of technology and creativity. In addition, the creation of knowledge and the refinement of ideas will increasingly be a collaborative process, and our classroom teaching methods should reflect this. The ability to understand other cultures will also be crucial. However, all of this has to be done, I think, with a respect for the traditional core knowledge that must be part of a Harvard education.

The financial crisis, as bad as it was, had a silver lining: it forced all of us -- and I think the Overseers should be part of this process -- to focus on what costs are central to Harvard's missions and which are layers of flab that accumulated in the feast years. There is a tendency at all institutions, academies foremost among them, to get self-indulgent when there is no cost discipline. Overseers should encourage efficiency rather than coming up with peripheral ideas to be funded.

I welcome the governance review that is happening at Harvard. Having served on the board of Tulane, which became very effective and engaged after Hurricane Katrina, I think there is a way for university trustees to promote accountability while not being improperly intrusive. The current division between the Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers does not lend itself to this balance, in my opinion.

On your specific question about ROTC: Yes, it would be good to have it back on campus; now that the policy regarding gays in the military is changing, I believe that opens the way for Harvard's relationship with ROTC to change.

As you know, I spend a lot of time at Harvard these days. There are so many things going on worth encouraging, such as the new Technology and Entrepreneurship Center at Harvard and the growth of the School of Engineering and Applied Science and the profusion of student arts organizations. I love Harvard's history, I love its current vitality, and I love its prospects for the future!