General Education Council discusses possibility of history requirement elimination

Maggie Rasmussen (Thursday, March 13)
Chris Hunter / The Bulletin
Associate Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences Gerrit Bleeker discusses the proposed changes to the general education curriculum yesterday at the General Education Council meeting in the Phi Delta Kappa room in the Memorial Union. The council is currently working to get the new curriculum to pass in the Faculty Senate.

In a meeting of the General Education Council Wednesday, the issue of dropping the history requirement from the list of general education required courses was addressed.

Gary Bleeker, associate dean of liberal arts and sciences, and Gary Wyatt, associate professor of sociology and anthropology, presented the proposal to the senate and were available for clarification of the change.

“I left feeling good in the sense that we received a fair hearing,” Wyatt said. “No matter what happens, we were heard.”

A second reading of the proposed change will occur at a faculty senate meeting on April 1 and will be put up to a vote without adjustment or amendment of the proposal. If affirmed, the proposal will go before the university president for final approval. The president can also choose to pass the proposal even if the senate votes against it.

In the general education meeting Wednesday, the council discussed misconceptions of the proposal. One major concern of dropping the history requirement that the council has heard is that students would be able to graduate from the university without taking a history class.

While many courses of study would allow the option of choosing a different class, many courses would still require history as a general education class. Nursing and education majors were examples cited by the council as studies that would continue to require history. The school of business was also cited as an example in that though the school will not require history, it will strongly encourage students to take the class.

“It just seems silly,” said Steve Neill, assistant professor in school leadership. “These concerns seem more philosophical rather than practical. Given the option between philosophy and history, many students will still choose history.”

The possibility of an adjustment of assessment procedures was also discussed. ESU’s assessments would be made available to the public with Voluntary System Accountability. VSA would allow students and their parents to become the consumers in that demographics from universities would be made available to interested parties.

Test scores and other demographics would be available as an additional resource for those choosing a university or college.

“Under a consumer base appearance, the most important thing is going to be how we look,” said Tony Ambrosio, director of assessment.

A move to a faculty driven approach to assessment was considered in the meeting, which would allow teachers to have more academic freedom. Teaching for assessment, such as the CAAP test, forces teachers to adjust their curriculum to meet the test rather than what they might consider to be the most essential information for students.

Faculty driven assessment would allow teachers to have input concerning the form of external assessment students would face. It would allow teachers to decide on what they believe to be the most essential information and find a test that would reflect that education.

The issue of finding a test with credibility was discussed as well. Though the council conceded that the CAAP test has more credibility when it comes to outside pressures such as the Board of Regents, the test the school decides to go with must be an accurate diagnosis of students’ education.

The board will decide further action on changing assessment procedure at a meeting on April 1.

6 Responses to "General Education Council discusses possibility of history requirement elimination"


History Major
March 13, 2008 6:09 pm
What a joke. I hope this does not pass the Faculty Senate. Wouldn't it suck if the students of Emporia State forgot about the Holocaust or how we as a country are making the same mistakes (thanks President Bush). Won't we be better off just leaving history in?
I think I can think for myself
March 23, 2008 8:50 pm
I dropped an upper-level history class when I saw the book title.

I am not happy that history might go away. But I was not as mad about that news as I was when I viewed the book titles that ESU History faculty was peddaling onto our somewhat young and somewhat fragile minds.

I feel many of the ESU history professors abused their positions by forcing students to purchase books that express some quite radical views. I don't know how many are still at the books stores this late in the semester, but it was VERY eye-opening. I am ALL FOR giving students well-rounded opinions, including ones we may not like. But a walk through the book store was a bit scary to wonder what was being taught in these classes.

Abuses of power like that generally don't go unnoticed. If many school our size makes 30 students purchase some of these titles, I am no longer surprised at how much junk makes it to NY Times best seller lists.

I don't need a "stuck in Emporia, world-hating professor to shape my mind about how much I should hate America.

Enough of my opinion. Take a peek next time you go by the bookstore.
History Major
March 25, 2008 1:55 pm
Probably because you, like the President, couldn't pronounce its title.
Annoyed by Stupidity
March 25, 2008 4:24 pm
I find it quite humorous that you can "think for yourself" and yet you proceed to throw a baby fit about the dangers of a history text book being peddaled "onto our somewhat young and somewhat fragile minds."

Please, in the future, speak for yourself, not the student body as a whole. Especially if you're going to insist upon expressing an entirely contradictory argument based on feigned outrage rather than actual legitimate concern. In short, get a life, because if you can't read a book without it changing the way you see the world around you, it means two things. One, the book is damn well written, and two, you should probably practice "thinking for yourself" a little more before you head out into the real world.

You were right about one thing, though. That is quite enough of your opinion.
History Minor
March 29, 2008 8:15 pm
I'm pretty sure this is the most ridiculous thing ESU has tried to do. I hope this doesn't pass Faculty Senate. Not only will you have a generation of students who know nothing about history, but it's just a cop-out for students who think history is boring and don't want to read.

I love this University, but they don't have their heads on straight with this one.
An interested party
March 30, 2008 9:04 pm
The Atrosoties that Pres. George Bush Jr. and the Israeli government are committing in the middle east today are not different from those attrosoties committed by Adolph Hitler in the mid 1930's to 1945. The Atrosoties are definitely being repeated.

We need to ask, in a genuine way, why?
Those who financed, funded and guided A. Hitler were the 'New World Order' industrialist located in America and Britian and, to a lessor extent, France. Their aim was for A. Hitler to disrupt the 'Old World Order', which was, then, named by such names as: The Old Hapsburgs, The Ottomans, The Krupps, The Romonoffs and The Rothchilds.

A. Hitler succeeded in disrupting the order and holdings of these European Families. Once his goal was complete, the New World Order in America stopped the financing. Hitler did not have to funds to continue the war effort, so he went underground and eventually killed himself.

Point is that it is the same New World Order that is financing the current campaign we see in the middle east, i.e., George Bush's assault on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and soon Pakistan.

In fact, the New World Order' came to be 200 years ago in Southern Germany, and by WW1, it was firmly in place in America and Europe. So that all the wars since WW1 were a bout between who would dominate between the new world order and the old world order.

Our mistake of the present is not recognizing that those who sponsor the genocides are the same people whether in 1930 or 2008--Which is the Masonic order of the day-the Freemason and Builderburger Societies, not really the Hitlers and Bushes, they are only the spokesman for the Society's aims.

IN my opinion, education in history is vital. From recent history, approx. 15 years ago, Ex. Pres. George W. Bush Sr. had weapons inspectors go into Iraq and for the following ten years, those inspectors did test to ensure that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. They reported to George W. Bush that there were, in fact, absolutely no weapons of mass destruction. When it was certified that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, George Bush Jr. invaded Iraq. The stated reason for the invasion was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

In short, prior to the invasion, the sponsors of the war were ensured that they would not be met by an enemy with weapons of mass destruction.

Osama Bin Laden and his Al Queda organization then flew two plans into the twin towers of Manhatten in New York City.

Osama Bin Laden was the son of a wealthy Saudi Arabian Family. Saddam Hussien, one of his staunches enemies were the royal families of Saudi Arabia, including the Bin Laden family. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were enemies.

The Bush administration stated, after Al Queda attacked America, "Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda have attacked America". Bush then went after Saddam Hussien, stating "he has weapons of mass destruction".

First, we have to ask, "why did Bush attack Iraq and go after Saddam Hussien". Saddam Hussien was an enemy of Osama Bin Laden and Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Today nobody is looking for Osama Bin Laden. We were able to find Saddam Hussien in a hole in the ground in a country as large as California with 40 million people, and we found him in about two months after we started looking.

We know where Osama Bin Laden is. We know that he is in Warzerstan, a small village in Western Pakistan, but we don't go get him, and he stated that he was responsible for the attack on America.
Why are we not going after Osama Bin Laden, why did we go after Saddam Hussien and Iraq.

This New World Order spoken of above has the agenda of domination of the entire world, unlike the agenday of the Old World Order, which was regonal domination, i.e., to dominate separated small countries,
http://www.donaldscorner.com/herbert/index.html

A one world currency, one world govnment and one world order are elements of an agenda for world domination.

To dominate the world or to control the world you must control the worlds oil prices and it flow. If you control its prices, you control other countries economy, if you control its flow, you control who will have the capacity to fight against you, i.e., you control whether they can get oil and gas to move their tanks, planes and military vehicles.

If you look closely at the scenario, you will realize, from history, that The United States must invade and occupy Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan for control of the oil reserves of the world.

If we eliminate history from educational cirrulums, we will loose any chance of reversing all the above and we will be doomed to repeat our failures of the past.