Brown and Smith respond to General Education Proposal

Everyone is aware that the General Education Council has labored long and conscientiously on the proposed new General Education program. They have included a number of exciting course options, and they have trimmed the required number of credit hours, a move that students will surely welcome. However, some faculty feel there are weaknesses in the program and the process by which it was accomplished and that those problems need further review before the program as a whole is put to the vote in the Faculty Senate.

Much of the faculty objection to the proposed General Education program stems from disappointment that faculty were not allowed to complete the campus-wide discussions promised when revisions to the General Education program were first proposed. The truncation of discussion by the university’s former president, along with the belief that the changes made in the proposed General Education program are not driven by faculty input or consensus, is very disappointing to many faculty.

The sense of faculty frustration increased after the Academic Affairs Committee voted in February to reject the proposal and to send it back to the General Education Council. (There were only two votes in favor of the new program out of nine senators on the Academic Affairs Committee.) However, on the recommendation of another former administrator, Faculty Senate leadership departed from their customary procedure and brought the General Education proposal to the Faculty Senate for a final vote, thus effectively overturning or nullifying the vote to reject the proposal by the Academic Affairs Committee. At the most recent Faculty Senate meeting, members of the General Education Council who support the proposed new program (there are many dissenters on the General Education Council) stated their reasons why the faculty should pass the proposal. For the first time it became clear that the rationale for shaping the new program was that no one course is any more important than any other course and students and advisors must be trusted to make wise decisions among a wide range of General Education course options.

The new General Education program has broadened course choices for students, an important accomplishment. However, in making this shift, the General Education Council, on a series of narrowly contested votes, has also moved away from the university’s historic commitment to providing a liberal arts education for all students. If the proposed program is adopted, students will be able to graduate from the university without ever having taken several courses that are, in fact, foundational to that liberal arts education.

Faculty who wished to speak against the program at the senate meeting where the bill was first read were unable to do so for lack of time. Now the editorial page of the Bulletin is the only campus forum open to faculty members interested in pursuing the university-wide discussion of vision and principle promised at the beginning of the process.

The Faculty Senate need not reject or accept the program; it can, instead, call for further campus-wide faculty discussion. The Faculty Senate should table the proposal and send it back to the General Education Council, which should convene more faculty forums to discuss whether the current proposal is adequate for meeting the needs of 21st century students, whether the proposal is consistent with our historic commitment to providing a liberal arts education to all students, and whether it is still the will of the faculty to maintain our commitment to liberal arts education for all students.

Charles Brown, Professor of Philosophy

Karen Manners Smith, Associate Professor of History