To the Editor:
The Herald's editorial celebrating Banner ("How we learned to stop worrying and love Banner," Sept. 20) seriously misconstrues the aims of student activists like myself who invested time and energy to protect Brown's unique curriculum from the threat of accidental trampling by what should have been a simple administrative update. I can only hope that future students will not be discouraged by the editorial's uninformed account.
In many respects, I led the "opposition" to Banner. Our activism had nothing to do with Ludditism or an obsession with the status quo as a "cherished rite of passage." We wanted online course registration as much as anyone else. However, it could have been implemented in a way that mimicked the existing system, which had supported shopping period and other aspects of the New Curriculum for many years. Even a cursory examination of the resolution unanimously passed by the Undergraduate Council of Students would make it clear that we were seeking exactly this sort of online-but-supportive system.
I take offense at the idea that our activism is an example of how "students just like (you) can get it wrong sometimes" — especially since the editorial seems to hold the very same views that motivated us. It enumerates, as if they were original, some of the same changes that we suggested prior to Banner's implementation: pre-registration syllabus distribution and steps to facilitate shopping of multiple courses meeting at the same time.
The editorial notes that course overrides are "frequently granted," reducing concerns about enrollment caps and prerequisites, but we would have kept caps and prerequisites out altogether. They had never been implemented before (outside of some very specific contexts), and there was no reason to implement them under the guise of technological progress. How is shopping period better off with generous overrides than with no need for overrides at all?
Finally, the editorial asserts that "Banner has no doubt improved the broader shopping and course selection experience," but offers no support for that claim. I expect better-reasoned and better-informed editorials from The Herald.
Matt Gelfand '08
Sept. 20
