To the Editors of The Crimson:

According to an article by David J. Barron and Matthew A. Saal which appeared in your paper last Friday, the Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE) recently submitted a proposal calling for an additional two days to be added to reading period. The proposal was "prompted by student complaints about the work required during reading period." Plans about where these two days will come from are still indefinite. It is possible that two holidays during the school year will be turned into class days for such purposes. The CUE is now considering three alternative plans for the scheme's presentation. "The first scenario requires all papers to be due before the buffer (the two extra days), while another forces only those students in courses with both a final exam and a paper to hand in their papers before the break. The final alternative has no restriction for papers." This proposal will not advance the interests of those students saddled with big reading period work loads. Rather, the proposal threatens the interests of all students.

The primary causes of all this talk are classes that continue with papers and exams well into reading period. There is no reason to believe that the people who teach these classes will not simply extend the work into the "buffer period" of two days despite efforts to restrict work during that period. As Mr. Barron and Mr. Saal pointed out, reading period was "originally set aside...as lecture-free time." Yet, CUE Chairman Dean Steven Ozment himself said "No faculty member will dictate to another how to teach their courses. Once you're in a class you play by the rules of the master." Professors of such courses as Chemistry 17 are sure to abuse the extra two days.

Before continuing, a word or two on reading period from a student's perspective seems appropriate. During reading period, time begins to lose meaning. Monday is no different from any other day of the week. The dining halls clutter up with students who stretch the ordeal of Harvard food into hours because they do not want to trudge off to the library again. As people sacrifice more and more of their extra-curricular energies to study for finals, the student population adopts a perturbing distortion of life which almost suffocates the individual. The quality of life and spirits of students precipitously drop during reading period. More than any other time, students surrender control of their lives to Harvard. Now, the CUE plans to lengthen that awful limbo that haunts students twice a year.

The problem is that some professors encroach upon students' time to which they have no right. Since the CUE is perfectly willing to let this continue, its response is to make reading period longer. But, the professors in question have already managed to take over the normal reading period despite its avowed purpose. There is no reason why they will not intrude into the "buffer" days. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that these professors will take over this "buffer period". Consider Dean Ozment's admonition that faculty will not dictate to faculty how to run classes. In essence, the CUE is planning a tactical retreat doomed to failure.

A better way to handle the issue of excessive work during reading period is to insist that professors do their jobs in accordance with the college's rules. "Once in your class you play by the rules of the master," says Dean Ozment. Evidently, the dean has lost perspective. When professors agree to teach at Harvard, they are not granted little fiefdoms over which to exercise absolute control. Nevertheless, the dean's works are more relevant to the faculty than students. When we accept admission to Harvard, students agree to abide by the rules. If we cannot operate in accordance with the college's rules, we are asked to leave. Likewise, those professors who cannot perform their duties within the time-frame established by the rules and traditions of the college should be told to seek employment elsewhere. It is time for the Harvard faculty, the "untouchables", to respond. As a matter of fact, it is their obligation to do so. The students should not be bullied into a retreat that will literally consign the entire student body to unnecessary days of drudgery. Steven Maddox '86