AFTER THREE YEARS of discussion and planning, the seven task forces assigned to reform undergraduate education have begun to submit reports. It is vital that these reports undergo vigorous debate and criticism from all people within the University. Dean Rosovsky has paved the way for some of that discussion in his tactful dean's report for 1975-76.

In the report Rosovsky outlines the basis for the need to reform undergraduate education, noting correctly that many facets of the program, especially the Gen. Ed. requirements, seem to have little meaning or purpose. His call for a "constructive debate on the issues, not merely a battle between those who favor the status quo and those who oppose it," is a welcome one. Considering the unnecessary wariness and pettiness of the Harvard faculty and the opposition it has expressed not only to specific changes but to the discussion of important issues of education in general, such a call is extremely important.

Although Rosovsky cites the need for curriculum revision, he makes his strongest claim when he states that the key to change lies in the active and enthusiastic participation of a sufficient number of professors in any new programs that come out of the discussion. If undergraduate education is to improve at Harvard, it will be necessary that faculty members be willing to spend at least half of their time teaching, and half of that time teaching undergraduates, as Rosovsky suggests. No task force report will be able to compel faculty members to devote time to undergraduates, but Rosovsky's message is a much-needed attempt to address questions of instruction that overshadow talk of requirements and curriculum.

It is unfortunate, however, that Rosovsky does not seem to want to encourage student participation in the debate on the upcoming proposals. Instead, he rather haughtily assumes that the faculty knows what students would be willing to learn. This belief is misguided; student perspectives should not be ignored. Otherwise, only a handful of students--those who made up the student minority on each task force--will have a say in these major changes.

Students will have to live with the Harvard that emerges in the wake of the task force reports. They should have as great a voice in the debate as Faculty members, because without considering student views Rosovsky runs the great risk of mismatching curriculum with a set of requirements that students will be unwilling to abide. It is in everyone's interest that students help define the education they will receive.