To the Editors of The Crimson:

I gather, from yesterday's Crimson editorial that a fuss is being made about the tenure process. The people fussing are divided into two camps: those that want direct student involvement in the tenure process, and those who don't. Those who side with student involvement want to make "teaching ability" a more weighty consideration in tenure decisions. Those who side against student involvement don't think students are capable of contributing to an intelligent tenure decision.

The Crimson editorial suggests a middle ground to satisfy both camps. Leave student out of trhe tenure process, but make "teaching ability" a weightier consideration in tenure decisions. Sadly, The Crimson's suggestion is just as idiotic as the rest of the argument which it hopes to end. The idiocy lies in discussing the quantity of "teaching ability." The quantity doesn't exist.

There are in this world wise men and fools, humorous men and bores. And Harvard's faculty has representatives of each. But there are no men who possess the magical "teaching ability" that is the focus of the tenure debate.

It's like this--no man can teach me what I know. That is clear. From this it follows that no man can teach me what I do not know. Because that which I do not know is defined by that which I know. Thus, if I know what I know, then I also know what I do not know. And no man can teach me what I know.

If no man can teach me what I know and no man can teach me what I don't know, I ask you: what is a man with "teaching ability" supposed to do with his ability? Whom will he teach, and what?

I think it would be nice if folks would stop their talk about "teaching ability" and the tenure process. Let the faculty tenure whom it chooses, making sure only to get its share of wise men, fools, bores and wits. Lincoln MacVeagh '87