Editor for this issue: <>
I would like to try and clear up some of the misunderstandings caused by my last post. The statements about Warren Goldfarb seemed to be the worst offenders: "We in the department have very good reason to believe that this decision is purely political. For example, Professor of Philosophy Warren Goldfarb, who is chair of the abovementioned Advisory Committee, is a disciple of Hillary Putnam (one of Noam Chomsky's sworn enemies), and is widely known to hate the field of linguistics." First, I had hoped it was clear these are not my own personal statements, but rather come from a general consensus of the undergradutes in the department. Concerns about the factual content of these statements, or the entire post, should be addressed to Joel Derfner at jderfnerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuehusc.harvard.edu. Second, we in no way question Warren Goldfarb's integrity as a person or a scholar. What we question is the appropriateness of his being chair of a committee controlling the fate of Harvard's linguistics department, since he disagrees with so much of what is taught there. We also question the motives of the administration in allowing him to remain as chair. It appears to us undergraduates that the Advisory Committee is more a formality for the administration than an actual attempt to examine how linguistics can best be taught at Harvard. Third, as people have been correct to point out, the wording of these statements is too strong. I must apologize for that; emotions have been running high, to say the least, and tact has sometimes fallen by the wayside. I hope that this has cleared up at least some of the misunderstandings. We (and I personally) truly want to avoid adding unnecessarily to the combative feelings which have been stirred up by the administration's high-handed dealings with the linguistics department. --Mark Kille Once more, please, address factual concerns to: Joel Derfner (jderfner
husc.harvard.edu)
During the week of October 4, I asked Mark Kille to post a letter from Christoph Wolff and a short message. Although at the time I thought I understood the facts of the situation completely, I've found out some things since then and am now less sure of my understanding of the facts. Because I may have spoken with an incomplete understanding of the situation, I retract my statements about Professors Goldfarb and Putnam and apologize to them. I also want to make it clear that I and not Mark Kille wrote the message that was tagged onto the end of Dean Wolff's letter. Nevertheless, I think that the fate of linguistics at Harvard is not certain. On October 13 at 9:15 in the morning I spoke to Christoph Wolff, Dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who said, "theoretical linguistics . . . will form the backbone of whatever program we have" and "there will be appointments in theoretical linguistics." (It was clear that by theoretical linguistics he meant generative linguistics.) However, on October 7 at 10:20 in the morning I spoke to Lawrence Buell, Dean of Undergraduate Education, and said, "I'm scared that, if this happens, generative linguistics will have no place at Harvard." He said, "That doesn't necessarily follow, but it might." Again, I apologize for statements I made with what may not have been a full knowledge of the facts. To the people who have been supportive of us so far, thank you very much, and I hope that my having spoken rashly will not prevent you from continuing to support us. Yours truly, Joel Derfner Harvard Class of '95 jderfnerMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuehusc.edu 187 Adams Mail Center Cambridge MA 02138-5004 617-493-3408