Although the Teachers' Union Report cannot be regarded as a divinely inspired panacea, at least two of its suggestions--fixed security of tenure for younger instructors and increased competition in the upper ranks--will go far toward alleviating many problems that now face the profession. In addition to decreasing inter-faculty friction, these proposals will contribute to the improvement of the quality both of Harvard's teaching and of its research.

In place of the extant unstable system of appointment, the Report recommends the substitution of a three-years term for all full-time appointees. Such a measure would eliminate the threat of dismissal which instructors must now feat at the close of each semester; the resulting increase in stability of working conditions could not help but produce a higher standard of work. As a corollary to this three-year plan, the Union urges that the University decide the question of permanent appointment after an instructor's eighth year of service. A definite policy to the appointees and to the department; for the former would know more surely where they stood, and the latter might avoid in the future such embarrassments as the Walsh-Sweezy Affair.

The second proposal in the Report--that the spirit of competition in the lower ranks should extend to the higher departmental positions--is also likely to be beneficial to the entire college. Obviously automatic salary increases, or even the assurance of a steady wage, are not conducive to the same qualitative and quantitative accomplishment that competition tends to produce. The substitution of competitive for automatic standards among professors should therefore result in a higher general level of attainment.

Against these proposals, it may be argued that set rules of tenure lessen the University's bargaining power and that professorial competition detracts from the dignity of that exalted calling. But the increased security provided the younger members of the Faculty more than balances the first objection, and the second criticism is nullified by the fact that competition will serve only as a stimulus to those academicians who at the present time are prone to rest on their laurels. Although minor objections may remain, it seems likely that these proposals will not only decrease the present discontent among instructors, but will also raise standards of teaching and research.