Perhaps if the University's administrators could run their institution like an academic community"--where rules and regulations are more flexible to the individual in this treasured, diverse student body--the pressure this University imposes would not be so immense as to cause illness, deception, or problems of "adjustment."

But such prayers are a simplistic pipedream at Harvard. This is because Harvard is a particularly stolid institution, well-rooted and paralyzed by tradition. Brown University, for example, no longer takes any kind of action against students who fail one--or even two--courses per semester. The only requirement the university poses to a student who fails a course is that the credit must be made up in order for the student to graduate.

This seems like a fair enough deal--and it compels one to ask whether probation is necessary at all.

Both Dean Fox and Archie C. Epps III, dean of students, said last September that even though Brown and other Ivies may do otherwise with their undergraduates, Harvard has a "standard of excellence" to maintain, and probation is the most effective way to maintain it. But as Rev. Peter Gomes pointed out at the convocation of the Kennedy School of Government last October, "excellence is not enough." There are more important things than efficiency and excellence in an academic community. For example, there is the dedication to the quality of a student's education with concommitant respect given to the student as a unique individual.

As an academic institution of quality, Harvard must accept its responsibility to meet those individual needs and interests as closely as possible. But under the weight of bureaucracy and tradition and Godly excellence, Harvard does not do much for individuals. Perhaps it is time to abolish some traditions--and attitudes--and probation wouldn't be a bad place to start. But at Harvard, traditions die hard, and behind those nearly inflexible traditions stand attitudes, like shadows.

AND THOUGH I see the problems of unsatisfactory grades and make-up exams as a student, the University sees them as a logistical problem. In the process, I become a logistical problem, and I will remain one until I graduate or until the attitude changes, whichever comes first.

Despite all the sweet nothings uttered to the contrary, Harvard's attitude towards her undergraduates is best voiced by Fox himself. When asked last September whether the administrative board was the most helpful mechanism for students he could imagine. Fox replied, "If you could find a better mousetrap, you'd buy it."