First, it is important to emphasize that most professors and courses are evaluated and are happy to be evaluated. The debate was really about two main issues. (1) Should every course of 5 or more students be evaluated no matter what? Some professors, and no doubt some students, feel that evaluations in a very small course in which anonymity cannot be maintained are awkward. (2) Has the quality of evaluations fallen since the system has gone electronic. When students wrote evaluations on paper during class time with their peers taking it seriously, they tended to give more, and more serious, feedback. Electronic responses are often limited to numerical ratings or may contain more flippant comments--not necessarily negative, just not useful.
You are right, Richard, that students do know what is best for them in some ways. They know if they are interested, they know if the syllabus is well organized, they know if section discussions are well run, they know how many comments they got on their papers, etc.
But they do not necessarily know if the professor knows what he or she is talking about, and they do not necessarily want to be taught the most about a topic they could be. They might prefer a pleasant but unchallenging experience.
It is certainly possible to get great CUE guide evaluations by teaching a very challenging and rigorous course, but you had better be interesting, impassioned, and willing to lavish time on helping students with their projects, etc. That of course is the ideal that everyone would like to see fulfilled.
The problem is that it is much easier to get CUE evaluations that are as high or higher by teaching an easy course, telling all the students their work is splendid, and handing out inflated grades.
CUE evaluations probably cause some bad teachers to improve their act in the classroom. But do also push other classes toward the mode of popular entertainment.
We should strive for an evaluation system that will reward professors for hard work, passion, etc., but not reward them for just going easy on their students.
 

That's why CUE ratings also have a question about the relative ease of a course and the amount of time students spent studying for it--if it receives high ratings but also is rated as extremely easy, everyone knows what kind of course it is.
 

Appreciating the comments of anonymous number one, efforts should also be made to cultivate an evaluation system that holds the (teaching) faculty to a standard of quality that is consistent not only with the expectations of students, but the institution itself. I.e, there needs to be a process of crtical review in place that is fair to the both the faculty and students, and one that is exercised in such a way as to best meet and respect the needs of the students, faculty, and institution. Unfortunately, the comments offered by a select number of faculty in The Crimson piece suggest an open hostility and disdain, not only for the process, but for the students themselves. This is not uncommon, surprising, or unique to Harvard, but considering the current tenor of student/faculty relations on campus, I'd like to think that faculty would be more receptive to this issue. That being said, perhaps The Crimson were deliberate in their choice of faculty to speak to on this issue.
 

Faculty Council voted unanimously in favor of the proposal that all courses with more than five students be evaluated. Most professors agree that evaluations help them to improve their teaching. Those who spoke against the motion at the Faculty Meeting only made themselves look silly.
 

I agree with the last post, the Crimson news article was biased and polemical.
I think that one point that has gone unmentioned in this discussion is that CUE results have never been the sole factor in students' decisions to take classes nor I would presume the faculty's decision to keep them (assuming there is some faculty review process, I certainly hope there is ...). The week-long shopping period (which is informally much longer) is an excellent Harvard policy, allowing students to make their own educated decisions about what classes to take. That said, they may want to take the easiest classes possible (Can you blame them?). Hopefully the curricular review that was continuously tabled while the faculty skewered Larry will ensure that less academically ambitious Harvard students do still get educated in spite of themselves.
~ A Crimson Editor
 

I doubt that students would need to generally be educated "in spite of themselves"--as if students wished to pay (or have someone else pay) $40,000 a year to do nothing--although good guidance is definitely needed.
 

Yes, students would have their parents / the college (if they're on aid) pay $40,000 for them to do nothing. It buys you a whole lot of status, a good resume, and 6,000 young people to hang out with even if you get straight C's. Are most students at Harvard this way? Definitely not. But that doesn't mean that a lot of them will hate %50 of their classes. Take a math major who would kill not to take one class in the humanities or soft sciences, or vice-versa. Harvard takes students based on a "well-lopsided / ethnically interesting / athletic" model, and you've got to believe that the majority of those students would create their curriculi very differently if given the chance.