Hostilities in the tenure free-for-all have now been going on for about four months, although it is only within the last few days that there has been pitched battle between Faculty elements and the Administration. Thus far there has been no hint as to the final up-shot. This much has been accomplished: all the sides concerned have at last clarified their positions so that the points at issue are comprehensible. This alone is a great deal, considering the enormous complexities of the problem.

It is about time, however, to take stock of how the battle can end. Utterly irreconcilable views and claims have been advanced, ranging all the way from a demand by some members of the Faculty that all ten assistant professors be reinstated, to a refusal on the part of some Administration officials to admit that there is anything wrong at all. There will obviously have to be a compromise if the Faculty and the Administration are to live at peace in the future.

But whatever the solution, it absolutely must be governed by educational considerations. The question is not primarily one of the budget or even of justice to college teachers, but rather of how undergraduates can be given the most efficient instruction. For this reason, the best solution seems to lie in readjustment of the Administration's policy toward associate professors.

Instead of appointing only so many associate professors as can be later advanced, the Administration should permit each department to name as many associate professors as its teaching needs dictate--exercising supervision to the extent of imposing a total budgetary limit. This would ensure that every department had enough "middle men" to efficiently staff its courses. It would also mean, of course, that some of the associate professors could never be advanced, but this presents no formidable problem if it is realized that associate professors here have larger salaries and greater academic prestige than full professors in most other colleges.

This is only part of the treaty which could end the present battle, for there is a vital procedural question involved. It is the matter of democracy in the conduct of Harvard's affairs, and it can be appreciated only by surveying fully a background which includes the formal democracy of President Eliot and the benevolent dictatorship of President Lowell. Now the Faculty, stung by the Administration's hasty and somewhat arbitrary action in the acceptance of the Committee of Eight's report, is once more demanding a greater voice in management. Although the final result may come only in the long run, here too the Administration must show a willingness to make concessions.