Five hundred disappointed lecture-goers were turned away yesterday afternoon from a Fogg lecture room in which Professor Robin Feild was extolling the merits of Mickey Mouse and associates. Each of the five hundred bore witness to the wide interest which has been evoked by the summary dismissal of the department of Fine Arts' most popular professor. The spontaneous outburst of student indignation and the formation of a Fine Arts Concentrators' committee to make formal protests are other danger signals indicating that the Feild Case is by no means closed. Much as it would like to, the department will find it difficult if not impossible to end the affair on the present note of "regrettable but necessary."

Aside from the clash of personalities inevitably involved in a case of this sort, Professor Feild's concluding appointment is the result of a fundamental difference of opinion within the department. At present, overwhelming stress is laid on the historical and factual approach to the Fine Arts. Students are filled with names and dates, are taught to recognize famous pictures, to distinguish the works of one master from those of another. While there is a branch of the department devoted to design and actual drawing, it is isolated and disconnected from everything else, and no one seemingly knows why it exists or where it fits in with the rest.

The Fine Arts department thus fails to accomplish what should be its highest goal to teach a student the method by which he can judge art for himself, to show him the universal essentials which lie behind all art. The attainment of such a goal entails far less emphasis on facts and chronology--these become a means to an end rather than an end in themselves. It means greater stress on practical art and design; and more than this, a close integration of practical work and history. It means the coordination of art with other branches of knowledge. It means finally the demonstration of the connection between the Fine Arts and the present-day world. The arts would consequently cease to be beautiful expressions from a past period of history, and would become something of living significance.

The introduction of such ideas would involve revolution in the Fine Arts department. It is this revolution of which Professor Feild is the tribune. But the revolution cannot come, and Feild must go because of Harvard's teacher-tenure and departmental-autonomy systems. By these, the committee of six permanent fine arts professors are entrusted with the final decision as to who shall teach under them. Thus they are able to choose their own successors, perpetuate their own ideas, prevent any change, and eliminate unwanted personalities. So long as they remain in control, the department will be static--as it was at its founding.

For the present, it is not necessary to revamp the whole system of appointments and tenure. It is only necessary for President Conant to act over the heads of the Fine Arts Six and reinstate Professor Feild. Although departmental autonomy may be desirable as a general rule, the president in exceptional circumstances is fully justified in exercising his prerogative of superior authority. Beyond this, it would be well for the Faculty Committee of Nine to undertake an investigation of the complete fine arts set-up, with a view toward evaluating the methods now used and those which might be introduced.

These steps: would prevent the commission of a grave injustice. They would forestall the loss of the most popular and successful teacher in Fine Arts. But beyond this, they would possibly lead to fundamental changes in the department which, in view of its unparalleled resources, would make Harvard one of the world's leading centers of art culture.