This afternoon, at its last meeting of the semester, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences will face legislation from the Committee on Graduate Education (CGE) concerning mandatory evaluations for all Teaching Fellows (TFs) in the College. Currently, the Committee on Undergraduate (CUE) Guides lack information on any TFs in classes led by professors who opt out of the evaluative process.

This legislation greets the Faculty seven months after a similar—but considerably more expansive—piece of legislation was tabled: a bill that would have required all professors, as well as all TFs to take part in CUE evaluations. At that meeting, vocal critics destroyed momentum that the legislation gained from its unanimous approval by the Faculty Council. We hope that in this afternoon’s meeting, a professor or dean addresses the concern of professors opting out of the CUE and amends the legislation to match last May’s aborted attempt. Short of such an amendment, we hope this bill fails and does not resurface until the Faculty is willing to hold itself to the same measure of accountability it rightly expects of its graduate students.

The number of professors and TFs who are left out of the CUE is relatively small—last spring, about 60 professors and more than 230 TFs were not evaluated—but this small cohort is disproportionately likely to need evaluations. While there are a small number of professors who oppose mandatory evaluations on perverse ideological grounds—evaluations “introduce the rule of the less wise over the more wise,” according to Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53—it is reasonable to suspect that the vast majority of the professors opting out are simply bad teachers.

The focus of this legislation is the CGE’s practical needs. Any TF who is not evaluated is not eligible for Harvard University Certificates of Distinction in Teaching, and will not be eligible for the new Derek C. Bok Awards for Excellence in the Teaching of Undergraduates. TFs who happen to teach under professors who scoff at students evaluating them are unfairly excluded from these distinctions, which now—thanks to a recent gift to the University—include cash prizes of $1,000.

The CGE’s concern for these TFs is understandable, and their legislation rightfully appeals to their constituents. Yet even the bill’s foremost proponent, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Theda Skocpol, who chairs the CGE and the recently formed Task Force on Teaching and Career Development, maintains that “It is not fair to the vast majority of good, conscientious teachers to have a small number of professors opt out of the CUE Guide.” She added, “Personally—speaking as a professor—I would support an amendment to the legislation. I do want all professors to be evaluated.”

Students may not be qualified to judge the content of a professor’s scholarship, but they must be the primary judges of a professor’s teaching abilities. One does not need a doctorate to determine whether professors are well-organized and present engaging lectures, and whether, in the end, students feel educated by the class. In practical respects, reports on all professors will hopefully improve—or at least educate—faculty members on how they either inspire or bore the students whom they teach. On a more general level, mandatory evaluations send the message that initiatives like the Task Force on Teaching and Career Development were intended to make: Harvard University is committed to improving the academic experience that Harvard students receive. Currently, professors’ ability to opt out of the CUE—no matter how few do choose to do it—signals a glaring disregard for students’ feelings regarding their own education.

Rumblings around campus suggest that a faculty member will offer to amend the legislation. If no one does, however, we hope that the Faculty will reject the current legislation. Holding TFs hostage is an unfortunate cost to pay, but one well worth paying if it leads to a system where all professors’ teaching abilities are evaluated by students.