To the Editors of The Crimson:

Harvard's commitment to excellence in all fields is something which undergraduates often take for granted and at times underestimate, but recent events around the Department of Applied Sciences lead me to question that commitment.

As we all know, the computer is sweeping every facet of academic, business, and daily life under its domain. Every firm, university, and household which turns so much as an eye to the future is currently investing a substantial portion of its budget to the acquisition, augmentation, or maintenance of a computer system. Universities are leading the charge, some attempting to provide every dormitory room with a terminal, others increasing fundraising and endowments for improvement of computer facilities.

It cannot be seriously charged that Harvard is ignoring this movement, or even that it has not made substantive efforts to upgrade its computing system. A concentration in computer science has been created, a new VAX has been purchased, and word processors have been installed in undergraduate Houses. Harvard produces important computer research and turns out numerous capable programmers at every Commencement. Something is being done, but altogether not enough.

Students in the all-popular all-important AM 110 are undergoing an inestimably traumatic experience of computer incapacity this term. Associate Professor Philip Bernstein has been denied tenure, with the result that Bernstein and his workmates. Assistant Professors Nathan Goodman and Annie Shum, are diverting both their own minds and the large amount of computer resources dedicated to their research from Harvard to private industry. Use of the timeshared computer system has become an ordeal for students in smaller computer courses as well--the overloaded machines spend minutes generating the simplest processes, thereby negating the utility of the computer: its speed. Even casual users can avoid a lengthy line only by scheduling computer usage for the hours 4 to 8 a.m.

In short, the obstacles erected by the University's failure to commit funds commensurate to the magnitude of the computer revolution stand in the way of almost every Harvard affiliate. Nontenured faculty in the department see no opportunity for advancement and leave; outside talent in the field are thus discouraged from pursuing a position here as well; students in the department (and in the newly created major) must await inevitable hassles in their courses; prospective undergraduates are discouraged from the study of computer science at Harvard, and may well begin to turn down the River or elsewhere; and finally, the student who would simply like to become "computer literate" in a term or a year (there are hundreds of us), cannot experiment with programs except during the graveyard shift unless he/she enjoys hour-long queues or being bumped off the machine inexplicably.

The University is deathly afraid of including AS 10 and or AS 11 in the Core because it would provide incentive for even larger hordes to sign up and log on than now enroll in those courses. This is however, just the type of action which would renew students faith in the Harvard commitment to excellence. The University would be required to invest heavily in new facilities to accommodate the demands of these Core courses, and would consequently meet the needs of disillusioned Harvard affiliates everywhere.

Computers are undoubtedly at the cutting edge of education today, and many schools are adjusting their pocketbooks to take on the new challenge. Harvard's age-old commitment of excellence requires a thorough reevaluation if the University is to continue rejecting tenure proposals, inconveniencing student users, and discouraging everyone who is thinking toward the future from thinking Harvard. Peter J. Nanula '84