HASCS workers, in fact, had frequently complained about staff, space and money shortages which made it difficult to do their jobs. Lewis' committee had heard complaints for months and been presented with detailed memos on the subject. But when he was interviewed last spring for a series on the network, Lewis lied. He denied knowing anything about complaints or problems in HASCS.

Perhaps, Lewis had some compelling reason for his lack of candor on these two important issues. But we can't think of a good one. Perhaps a search committee could answer this question: why should we trust Lewis to tell the truth as Dean of the College?

Lewis' authorship of the Report on Harvard College also makes his selection curious. The newly appointed dean says that while he intends to hear more viewpoints between now and July 1, he stands behind the recommendations of the report. That means a Lewis administration would see a number of changes, most notably randomization of the housing lottery, that are wildly unpopular with students.

The lack of care and sensitivity in the compiling of the report also calls Lewis' judgment into question. The appendix on PBH is instructive. There, Lewis and the report's other authors call for a restructuring that would eliminate the jobs of one, if not both, of the leaders of Harvard's popular public service programs. The problem is that the report's authors never interviewed any of the student coordinators of popular outreach programs like HAND.

We would hope that, as dean, Lewis would consult with more people and reconsider the recommendation he made in the report. But there it is again. All we have is hope. No search committee ever got a chance to ask Lewis about his plans for public service, or anything else.

Lewis, however, is not the only issue here. The man whose judgment is most open to question is Knowles. This excuse-for-a-real-search might be dismissed as an aberration if the dean had showed more than a passing interest in students' opinions in the past. Knowles, however, meets with students only when they express an interest. And sometimes, even when they request a meeting, he will deny the request and hand-off to a lower ranking administrator. It is not uncommon for Knowles--the man responsible for the courses undergraduates take and the faculty who teach them--to have weeks when the only undergraduate he talks to for more than 10 minutes is a Crimson reporter.

We hope this editorial is a wake-up call for Knowles. It is not acceptable for a dean of the Faculty to be so hopelessly, and unapologetically, out of touch. In future searches for important administrative jobs, let this be the guiding principle: a search is only legitimate if students participate in all aspects, from the screening of applications to the interviewing of specific candidates. Perhaps without knowing it, Lewis himself recently made the argument for such a policy. "We have many bright and imaginative students here," he said, "and good ideas may come from any of them."

Obviously, our administration currently cares little about student input in the appointment process. But undergraduates can force them to include students on search committees--if we forcefully pressure and lobby them.

All student groups have a responsibility to push for change on this issue. Many groups have been strangely and irresponsibly silent on the matter of Lewis' selection. And staying silent means that Harvard's student body will continue to be plagued by the same malady: administration without representation.