Keep Discussing Core Reform

We noted with pleasure last week that the members of the Faculty are discouraging the introduction of any legislation regarding the Core. They are doing so because this year's review process was far from thorough. (A review of the Core is required to be conducted every ten years by Faculty legislation.)

The Verba Report, released to the dismay of students six weeks ago, is an unacceptable blueprint for change. It serves only to reinforce the present Core structure--itself a rigid contraption of ambiguous and dated categories of thought--by adding a quantitative reasoning requirement.

At the very least, departmental bypasses need to be amended to the Core. However, we hope that more considerable change is possible. The Faculty ought to seriously consider all of the proposals--from the one major/two minors structure recommended by Arnold Professor of Science William H. Bossert '59 to the redesignation of Core fields endorsed by the Undergraduate Council to a great books approach advocated by Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield '53--in an on-going and rigorous process over the coming months. Even if these changes are too dramatic for the Faculty, we encourage them to discuss the subject of Core reform long and hard before enacting a review proposal that only a small number of Faculty members helped to shape.