Grade Inflation Cannot Tarnish Harvard Name

To the editors:

While on the whole simple and obvious, the argument that Jordana R. Lewis '02 makes against grade inflation concludes with a gross misstatement of the issue at hand (Mansfield Makes the Grade, Feb. 15). Lewis suggests that grade inflation, makes a mockery of our institution and our diplomas, a thought which at first glance appears quite firm, but at least reasonable.

Actually, only diminished entrance requirements, watered-down courses or a degeneration of the academic climate, not inflated grades, can make a mockery of the Harvard name. Grade inflation, on the other hand, makes a mockery only of our transcripts, and the GPAs that they contain, a very important difference. The issue is not the sullying of the Harvard name, but rather how best to differentiate the performance of students.

In todays climate, prospective employers can respect your Harvard diploma, cast away your inflated transcript and move on to others means of evaluation. If grade inflation really made of mockery of Harvard diplomas, the employers would not come at all. No matter how one feels about grade inflation, care should be taken to reasonably frame the debate, and not mire an important discussion about our respectable pillar of higher education with rhetorical over-enthusiasm.

Clay B. Tousey '02

Feb. 15, 2001

Put Music Back on Stage

To the editors:

B.J. Greenleaf's commentary regarding Napster (The Yap of Nap, Feb. 20) ignores the fact that musicians have always had a way to make money independently of the major record labels: It's called the stage.

Music is a performance art, and true afficionados recognize the primacy of the live experience. The more cynical among us are also fully aware of the magic that can happen in the studio, where out of tune notes are corrected, electronic effect and backup singers dominate, and then even Britney Spears comes out sounding, well, good.

Many music fans support Napster because they believe that the quickest way to rid the airwaves and the world of the studio-created trash that now dominates is to destroy the commercial viability of recorded music. Force everyone back onto the stage, and then we'll see who the real artists are.

A highly talented band like Phish can tour almost continuously for 17 years, maintaining a large and enthusiastic audience at show after show, while allowing and even encouraging the taping and free distribution of their music. This is something Britney will never be able to pull off.

Geoffrey L. Werner-Allen '01

Feb. 20, 2001

New Professorship to Benefit Women

To the editors:

The Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard (CEWH) applauds the Crimson for featuring articles such as "Tenure Problems Persist for Women" (News, Feb. 7). An open dialogue on these issues is a necessary first step in the quest to achieve equality for all women on campus.

I must, however, correct the erroneous reference concerning CEWH's offer to initiate the creation of an endowment fund for a tenured chair that will provide a joint appointment in the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Studies and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. This pledge was made not because "Nine of the 19 tenure appointments this year were women" but rather because CEWH considered the professorship to be an innovative step in furthering the education of women at Harvard begun by Radcliffe College in 1879.

Alice C. Welch '53

Feb. 17, 2001

The writer is the co-Chair of the Committee for the Equality of Women at Harvard.

A Right to Gamble?

To the editors:

Rachel P. Kovner's disappointment with the Progressive Student Labor Movement's "illiberal left" position on Harvard's financial involvement with casinos betrays a basic misunderstanding of what it means to live in a liberal society (Editorial, "Puritanical Progressives," Feb. 21).

Kovner (and much of the Left) supports political liberalism, or the right of citizens to be free from the "Puritanical" judgments of the state. Liberalism requires the government to tolerate institutions like casinos, regardless of their social costs. Kovner rightly notes that this doctrine seems to be violated by John Ashcroft's moralizing approach to American law.

But she falls into the trap of applying the political rule of tolerance to an issue that does not involve the state. In no way does it violate the spirit of political liberalism for people to act individually against institutions that harm us.

If the high social costs of gambling outweigh the benefits of the fun of casinos, then progressive activists, Christians and all people with consciences should work together to eliminate it. If not, then maybe we should follow Kovner's suggestion to buy a Megabucks lottery ticket today.

But in a liberal society it is this question, and not a gross appeal to tolerance for tolerance's sake, that should determine how concerned citizens respond to gambling.

Zeke W. Reich '03

Feb. 22, 2001