This list only begins to suggest what Phelan undertook in addition to her teaching, advising and administrative obligations as both chair of VES and director of the Carpenter Center.

The development of Studio Arts and the full range of her projects could scarcely have been undertaken, much less brought to successful fruition as they have been, had not Phelan devoted herself—with superb administrative competence—full-time and more than full-time (she has maintained a residence in Cambridge since 1995) to her department and to its goal of fostering the making of art by Harvard undergraduates. Such complex and far-reaching projects require willing and sympathetic staff support; in past years VES has been, for the most part, fortunate in having that important resource.

The Crimson’s stance on Phelan’s sudden and startling dismissal as chair leaves many questions unanswered. In any institution, department, or community, there will be difficulties and dissensions; we all have an interest in supporting judicious and informed procedures for addressing such matters. In the absence of any official statement on the matter from the administration, we are disturbed that The Crimson would presume to censure Phelan’s leadership of VES, and we question the basis on which that opinion was formed and on which the administration apparently acted. Given Phelan’s accomplishments and ongoing contributions to Harvard, your suggestion that the “ability of the VES department to implement her vision” was “compromised” is incomprehensible.

We applaud Phelan’s success and that of her VES colleagues in bringing the arts to Harvard with unprecedented imagination and energy, and in creating a context in which undergraduates are taken seriously as makers of art.

Although a scheduled review by the Visiting Committee of VES, which had not been convened in over five years, was cancelled by the administration at the time of Phelan’s removal as chair, we urge the University to give the Visiting Committee the opportunity to evaluate the developments since their last review.

We are deeply concerned for what Phelan’s dismissal may indicate about Harvard’s commitment to programs in the creative arts. The Crimson’s readers, the Harvard community and the broader community of supporters of the arts should express their support for the vision Phelan has brought to VES and to undergraduate education in the arts at Harvard.

Maureen McLane ’89