As the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR) moves into phase two—formulating plans to implement the broad concepts outlined in the spring—it is vital that Harvard remain committed to the review’s purpose. Last week, after the University announced the Faculty appointments to HCCR committees, Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 called for “adequate discussion” fearing that the deans behind the review “already know what they want to get out of it.” We share Mahan’s concern, and we worry that the new committees will be used to rubber-stamp University Hall’s proposals instead of genuinely discussing the best ways of moving forward. The Review is no fait accompli; treating it as such will allow last spring’s underwhelming report to serve as the underwhelming standard bearer for a Harvard education over the next several decades.

Harvard can do better. Harvard has done better. The last two reviews, one in the mid-1940s and the other in the mid-1970s, established the idea of a Core curriculum and committed Harvard to teaching “approaches to knowledge,” respectively. Where those reviews were guided by forceful and visionary principles, the review currently underway has failed to articulate any coherent theme, and is stuck trying to convince the greater community that study abroad, dubbed “internationalization,” mixed with a long-called-for reworking of the Core is somehow avant garde.

Last spring’s HCCR report—a hodgepodge of ideas derived from commonplace practices at competing universities—had an identity crisis, and the committees appointed last week will be tasked with solving it. This year’s committees have the opportunity to refine and broaden the ideas—or lack thereof—that emerged from last year’s opaque deliberations. But the committees will likely only do so by opening up a process in dire need of fresh ideas, alternative perspectives, and an infusion of creativity.

Harvard in 2004 has a lot to gain and little to lose from being less like Philadelphia in 1787. While the framers of the U.S. Constitution held meetings in secret to deal with the pressure of stabilizing a nation, the Curricular Review would be well served by initiating a substantive dialogue about the details and finer points of proposals with a broader audience. Presenting the community with specific plans and putting them up for discussion might help transform what has thus far been a relatively legless and rather visionless operation. When audiences are part of an ongoing dialogue and informed about the true status of decisions, they are far more likely to be invested in the outcome. Otherwise, the Review can all too easily descend into—as at times it has resembled—an empty public relations show.

To that end, minutes of committee meetings ought to be regularly distributed to the whole Harvard community. Meetings and open discussions in the Houses should be commonplace. Only when the entire College community is made to feel a part of this Review, and only when the committee’s work is open to scrutiny, are its fruits likely to reflect Harvard’s academic needs for the next several decades.