FDO Feature Neglected Alternate Viewpoints

To the editors:

I read with interest the article that you published in Monday morning's Crimson: "Nathans' FDO: High Turnover and a Heavy Hand" (College, Oct. 16).

I worked at the Freshman Dean's Office (FDO) for four years (1996-2000)--as an Assistant Dean of Freshmen for the first two years and as Associate Dean of Freshmen for the last two years. The reporter contacted me last spring with regard to the article that he was planning to write.

Having now read the article, I notice that the reporter makes no reference, in the body of the article, to the responses that I gave him in the spring. In a sidebar that did not appear as part of the article when it first appeared on the online version, he says that I, among others, said that I saw no basis for the allegations about Dean Nathans. I would like to point out that that claim is inaccurate. I did not say that I saw no basis for the allegations (nor did I tell him that I saw a basis for the allegations). I am dismayed that a comment that I did not make was attributed to me.

I am, likewise, dismayed that the many comments that I did make to the reporter last spring were not included in the article. He claims several times that most former administrators hold certain points of view but neglects to quote the opinions that I, as one of the longest serving administrators under Dean Nathans, shared with him last spring. This is, at best, sloppy journalism, but, more seriously, it comes across as an attempt on his part to give more weight in the article to points of view that seem to fit with the negative portrayal that he is presenting. He went to great lengths to seek me out last spring, even to question the veracity of my statements, and I can only surmise that because the opinions I expressed did not fit with this negative portrayal, he simply left them out! A fleeting (and inaccurate) reference in the closing sentences of a sidebar is inadequate representation.

I no longer work at Harvard, but I am not difficult to find, so I was surprised to learn that although the reporter recently contacted other former employees, some for the second time, he neither contacted me again nor quoted any of my comments to him last spring. The article would have been much more balanced and accurate had he investigated more thoroughly the support and guidance that Dean Nathans has given to both students and employees over the years. For example, I told the reporter last spring that I had found Dean Nathans to be "extremely supportive" of her staff. I am well aware that not all of her former staff members share this point of view, and they are entitled to their opinions, but I object to the emphasis that the reporter has placed on the (mostly anonymous) negative comments while neglecting to quote sufficiently the views of those making positive comments. Indeed, the negative intent of the article is obvious in the title and in the opening and closing lines. The article thus comes across as focusing unduly on the negative without adequately presenting the positive, and this, in my opinion, results in distortion.

Many former FDO employees have in fact moved on to positions of increased responsibility at Harvard and elsewhere. This is a good thing and is in the natural course of events. As someone who worked under Dean Nathans for the last four years, I feel that this article evinces a taste for sensationalism at the expense of objectivity and fairness.