Lewis Forgets Impact of Women in Grade Trends

To the editors:

I found Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis's account of the history of grade inflation at Harvard in the last century fascinating—especially in its total ommission of the words “Radcliffe College.” Not only has the college been absorbed, it has been removed where its existence actually impacted the topic under discussion!

Why were women receiving higher grades prior to 1973—before Radcliffe College’s historic agreement with Harvard which eventually lead to her demise as an independent undergraduate institution? Why did women’s grades decrease while the percentage of Dean’s listed students increased dramatically? I smell a rat. Maybe Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 has inadvertently assisted the Women’s Studies committee and its research... again!

E. Cristin O’Keeffe ’89

San Francisco, Ca.

Apr. 26, 2001

.

Defending a Living Wage

To the editors:

While I can understand harboring mixed feelings towards the Progressive Student Labor Movement’s current tactics, I was astounded by the op-ed by Jason L. Steorts ’03 assailing the legitimacy of a minimum wage (Opinion, “Against a Living Wage,” April 26).

Steorts forgets that wages “determined” by the free market are often insufficient to meet the most basic standards of living, a reality that led to the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Additionally, Steorts makes the even more surprising and unsubstantiated claim that paying a living wage is somehow inconsistent with Harvard’s mission. However, according to the language used in its very own Ad Hoc Committee Report of May 4, 2000, the University is committed to improving the Harvard community as a whole by treating our workers with dignity and compensating them fairly. I feel that over the past year, Harvard has made some progress in this area.

In reality, funds for increased wages are not currently going to education, research or scholarships as Steorts suggests; rather, they are tied up in our ballooning endowment.

Put another way, the University would have to increase its annual endowment payout by 0.2 percent over last year’s figure to accommodate the living wage.

In attacking the concept of a fair wage floor, Steorts is not only advocating one of the most tenuous and least compelling positions thus far, but he has also managed to move the debate itself backwards approximately 70 years.

Pavan K. Bendapudi ’02

Apr. 27, 2001