|
The claim you are contesting was not about Harvard institutional policy, but about people's behavior. Do they give their affiliation as just "Harvard" rather than something more precise, do they prefer (or not exactly object) to be mistaken for College matriculants rather than HES admits, and so on. Those assertions, whether correct or not, are not about Harvard's policies. Citing the policy is partly relevant, but does not come close to explaining the behavior.
Let's take a simple example to make clear the distinction. Michael Shinagel, who is dean of the Extension School and DCE, proposed recently to change HES diplomas to list the field of study instead of "Extension Studies". Both the Harvard faculty and College students (or at least, the UC) objected to such a measure, as it would create confusion between HES degrees and other Harvard degrees.
Now, suppose that the proposal had been in the other direction: to change Harvard's policy so that HES degrees must be reported as "ALB, Harvard Extension School". Is it your claim that nobody at HES would possibly object to this, since all that they ever do in describing their Harvard affiliation is just an innocent reflection of whatever Harvard's policy happens to be? That's in effect what you've been claiming, and it is totally unbelievable. What is much more likely is that there would be an enormous level of opposition from HES students to such a proposal, as highlighting the Extension aspect would reduce the value of their degree.
|