RU-486 Risky Choice

To the editors:

A recent article on RU-486, a drug designed to induce abortion (News, "UHS Approves Abortion Pill," Feb. 7) does not sufficiently explain the opposition offered by Harvard Right to Life (HRL).

While HRL is opposed to all forms of abortion, we take particular exception to RU-486. This pill, like the surgical procedure, poses a host of risks to both the physical and psychological well-being of the mother. However, RU-486 causes unique problems in a college community.

According to FDA studies conducted in India, China and other nations where RU-486 is widely used, chemical abortions "caused more adverse events, particularly bleeding," than surgical abortions. Another FDA study involving a sample of American women found that cramping, vomiting and nausea were also increased.

The necessity of communal living also makes RU-486 particularly objectionable on a college campus. This chemical will make abortions less private and cause a woman's decision to adversely affect those who live around her. After all, living with a roommate who is in the process of miscarrying her fetus in a communal bathroom necessarily affects all of those around, and the private pain that is endured by the formerly-pregnant student is transmuted into a public concern.

We fear that insufficient counseling may lull students into a false sense of security and present RU-486 as a panacea, which it certainly is not.

Mike B. Jobbins '04

Feb. 13, 2001

The writer is a member of Harvard Right to Life.

Teaching Skill Matters

To the editors:

I was distressed to read the headline given to an article on CUE ratings (News, "High CUE Ratings May Hurt Tenure Chances," Feb. 21) and thought I should set the record straight. Good teaching matters a great deal to us, and we look for a commitment to teaching when hiring faculty at any level. Departments present teaching data when justifying internal pre-tenure promotions, and the Council of Academic Deans insists that teaching data be part of the dossier for every appointment to tenure. It goes without saying that evidence of good teaching helps rather than hurts any candidacy.

Teaching and research are also often mutually reinforcing. Professors who are deeply caught up in research transmit their enthusiasm for their subject to their students; new insights often arise out of discussions in the classroom. Indeed, professors often begin working on a new area by teaching in that area; many important books began as Harvard lectures.

Of course, teaching does take time and can cut into the hours faculty members can spend in labs, libraries or archives. The University recognizes that; indeed, it was precisely for that reason that Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles established the Harvard College Professorships, which recognize extraordinary contributions to undergraduate teaching through the provision of additional research support or leave time.

I think it would be most unfortunate if either students or faculty were left with the impression that strong teaching evaluations hurt promotion chances. The opposite is true.

Susan G. Pedersen '82

Feb. 21, 2001

The writer is Dean of Undergraduate Education.

Let Them Pray

To the editors:

Arianne R. Cohen's Editor's Notebook ("Taking God out of Government," Feb. 9) was remarkable in its ability to amuse and irritate. Cohen's argument rests on the fact that she doesn't like the religious bent of others and thinks they should act as she sees fit.

I hope that in her "12 years of full-day schooling" she might have glanced once or twice at the actual text of the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The relevant clause in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." It means exactly what it says: The United States does not legislate or mandate religion. The phrase certainly does not mean that one cannot express his or her religious beliefs. While those who do believe in God cannot force Cohen to pray or to worship, she too has no right to force others to not pray or to not worship.

It would be perhaps useful for Cohen to continue reading from the First Amendment: "... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." An inauguration is not a service, not a federal ceremony and not an official endorsement of religion. An inauguration is a fluffy, symbolic event that incoming presidents plan because they like to have some type of celebration to mark the changing of the guard. The program at an inauguration is entirely at the discretion of the participants. No one forces Americans to watch it or participate in it.

If the incoming president preferred, he or she could have gongs played, dancing bears perform and someone lead the audience in the Wave instead of a prayer. Would that have offended the consciences of America? Would that have violated the Constitution? Of course not, although it might have offended our aesthetic sensibilities. Presidents choose to take oaths on a Bible, but it is certainly not mandated or official. Presidents choose prayers because they feel it is appropriate, or perhaps because the public expects them to.

Religion is only one of the many differences of opinions that people in this nation have, and I have no right to dictate to others what is an acceptable display of their own religion. A "secular government" means that religion should play no part in decisions of government, not that all participants in government must have no religion. True freedom of religion and freedom from state religion requires both those who are religious and those who are not to respect the practices and choices of others.

Jai L. Nair '99-'01

Feb. 9, 2001