Harvard's longstanding policy of mandating retirement at age 70 guaranteed some degree of turnover in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. In 1986, Congress passed anti-discrimination legislation that rendered illegal compulsory retirement policies such as Harvard's. While the law provides needed protection against age discrimination across the country, its implementation could cause dramatic problems for Harvard.

When professors fail to retire and turnover diminishes, the diversity of Harvard's faculty suffers. Many older professors remain on the cutting edge of scholarship. However, a scarcity of open teaching spots retards Harvard's progress in adding Harvard's progress in adding faculty with new methods of teaching and scholarships, as well as adding more women and minority professors.

Former President Derek C. Bok lobbied successfully for a seven-year delay before the law became enacted, so that Harvard could adjust to the imminent changes. But time is ticking away, and in some professors' eyes, the University has yet to present a satisfactory package of benefits that would induce them to retire voluntarily. The Faculty needs to continue to seek solutions--and faculty nearing the former retirement age should take into consideration the needs of their departments and of the University.

Fortunately, the pressure of finding incentives for faculty retirement affords Harvard an opportunity to improve the College's intellectual community, using oft-untapped resources of emeriti faculty. Some Harvard officials understand this already; Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles and Loker Professor of English Robert Kiely are encouraging emeriti professors to teach in house seminars.

The faltering house seminar program--very few houses offer more than one seminar per year, if any--is just another indication that House are failing to live up to their expectations. The scant interaction among undergraduate House residents and senior common room members is nearly farcical; most students only glimpse hordes of grey-suited professors filing to receptions in masters' residences.

Amidst other important considerations--a comprehensive pension plan, a long-term health care plan, resources for continued research--further provisions to integrate emeriti faculty into the troubled House system should be a priority. Harvard has an opportunity to address two problems at once. It shouldn't miss the chance.