The heart of the Harvard Policy Committee's Department Audit Plan is the provision that calls for the HPC to study and report on each department every four years. According to the present guidelines, the reports will assess strengths and weaknesses of the departments and evaluate individual courses and instructors. If the situation warrants, the HPC will recommend specific changes, such as the addition of new middle-level courses, possible reforms in tutorials or examinations, or perhaps even shifts in concentration requirements.

Several departments are already under study and the can be expected this Spring. The implications of the HPC's undertaking are exciting; for the first time at Harvard, students will have a significant, institutionalized voice in how and what they should be taught, and--to a lesser extent--who should teach them.

However, a decision crucial to the success of the entire experiment has not yet been made. The issue presently being discussed is how much, if any, of each report should be made public.

Those who suggest that the reports be circulated only to the department chairmen present two arguments. They insist that ad hominem comments in the reports should not be published and also argue that department chairmen and members will tend to be less cooperative with the HPC if they know that the information may be made public.

The first argument is a valid one. The embarrassment and ill will that would be generated by such a procedure would far outweigh the advantages of telling all. No personal comments should appear in the published report. The second argument, however, is less valid. Just as a newspaper reporter must get his point across without printing "off the record" information, the HPC need not violate confidence. And certainly, if department members are uncooperative, the HPC can obtain information easily enough elsewhere. In this University, little can be hidden from an industrious digger.

There are important arguments for releasing the HPC reports. The rest of the College should be able to examine these reports and criticize the critics, and the critics should be glad for the opportunity to supplement their own findings. But this constructive dialog will never take place if the reports are neatly marked confidential and filed away.

The most important argument for releasing the HPC's conclusions is that they may have little effect on hostile department chairmen if they remain unpublished. Chances are that the recommendations--and the will of the student body--will never be incorporated into departmental policy unless the recommendations are widely known. Only by publishing its reports can the HPC hope to prod the departments toward needed reforms.