Faculty To Hear Review Progress

In June of 2004, faculty members criticized the Harvard College Curricular Review for its lack of a “guiding philosophy,” and administrators promised to redirect their efforts toward a clear mission.

One year later, the curricular review remains stalled, leaving the Faculty frustrated by an endeavor that has faltered for lack of time, guidance, and a unifying principle.

According to the schedule set forth by Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby last fall, tonight’s monthly meeting of the full Faculty would have included votes on some concrete proposals of the review.

Instead, after months of discussion by some of Harvard’s most notable faculty and administrators, the same criticisms continue to plague the review, which has fallen far behind Kirby’s schedule.

Five of the six review committees have yet to release their findings, and the General Education report—presented in draft form to the Faculty Council in March—has been widely criticized as unfocused.

“There’s no sense that we have before us a brave new proposal,” says Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn, who is also a member of the Faculty Council.

The General Education report is widely acknowledged to be the cornerstone of the review, and its delay spells a murky future for the entire endeavor.

The schedule for tonight’s meeting includes the first status updates in almost a year from the curricular review committees, along with presentations by a number of other committees.

But with the docket packed, and with faculty members increasingly frustrated by the review’s seeming stagnation, many fear there will be little time for much-needed discussion on what University President Lawrence H. Summers once called “the most comprehensive review of Harvard’s curriculum in a century.”

Just one month after voting for a lack of confidence in the University’s president, faculty members may use the forum tonight to protest what some say is an administrative failing to guide the review.

Professors have noted “disarray” in University Hall, at a time when administrative guidance is most needed to push an agenda for the already-delayed review forward in the future.

BIG SHOES TO FILL

Thirty years ago, when Harvard last undertook such a review, the Core was born, and the previous review, in the wake of the Second World War, produced the foundational document on the idea of general education.

But as early as last year, problems were beginning to emerge with the latest attempt to redefine the purpose of a Harvard education. High hopes for the review faltered in the face of continued uncertainty about the purpose of the review itself.

Upon the release last spring of the 67-page Summary of Principal Recommendations for the Review, professors attacked the report for want of focus and vision, in spite of the report’s many specific suggestions for curricular reform.

Then-Associate Dean of the College Jeffrey Wolcowitz, who helped draft the recommendations, wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson last spring that he recognized the report’s lack of “a guiding philosophy of general education on the order of ‘general education in a free society’ in 1945, or even the Core’s ‘approaches to knowledge.’”

As administrators, faculty, and students left for the summer, it was clear that significant decision-making was needed in the coming semesters.

A FOUL SHOT?

At the start of the 2004-05 academic year, Kirby announced plans to have curricular review proposals voted on by the Faculty this spring, launching six new committees to narrow the focus of the review on issues such as the January Term and reform of Expository Writing.

The Committee on General Education, which is headed by Kirby himself, with Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 and Summers sitting in ex officio, finished its report in February, hoping to present its findings to the Faculty for a vote, as the other committees continued their work.

But since the final draft of the General Education report was presented to the Faculty Council in early March, some faculty have complained that the ten-page report offers only a vague sketch of the complicated reforms that need to be made.

Professors identified several target areas for clarification, most notably the interdisciplinary Harvard College Courses intended to help replace the Core.

While student surveys have revealed the demand for smaller courses, Harvard College Courses would be large, possibly team-taught lectures, complimented by smaller seminars.

The report simply states that each Harvard College Course include “two hour-long general sessions and a two-hour associated seminar.”

Many faculty say the report’s open-ended rhetoric fails to address basic concerns the review was meant to solve.

“We don’t have any hard information on what [general education at Harvard] is going to be like.” says Higginson Professor of History Philip A. Kuhn ’54, who also chairs the East Asian Languages and Civilizations Department.

“The view [of the Faculty Council] seemed to be that there was some significnt work to be done,” says Mendelsohn.

PACE YOURSELF

By the end of March, Kirby conceded that his initial schedule was unrealistic and postponed the public release of the final General Education report so that it could be further reviewed.

“The review has been performed much too hastily,” said Weary Professor of German and Comparative Literature Judith L. Ryan, a Council member. “You can’t do a thorough review from top to bottom...in two scant years.”

Kirby recently informed members of the Committee on General Education that the committee will meet at least twice more this semester.

“So many things [in the review] are interconnected,” Ryan says. “It’s going to be very hard to discuss one part of it without the others.”

Regardless of how discussion tonight progresses, it is likely that voting on other areas of the review will be postponed until the General Education proposal is solidified.

“If you pass things piecemeal you will have trouble coordinating them,” says Kuhn. “Everything you pass conditions what else you can pass in the future.”

But Kuhn’s fears may be premature, as voting on any concrete proposals is not in the cards. After a winter of delay and sidetracking, tonight may be marked by only superficial discussion of proposals.

“It seems like a very heavily loaded meeting to me,” Ryan says. “It may even be that we don’t get to all the status reports.”

“Harvard has been here for a long time and its pace in some ways reflects that,” says Professor of English and American Literature and Language and Director of Undergraduate Studies Elisa New, a member of the Committee on a January Term. “There is a lot of discussion ahead and it’s hard to tell just how many loose ends there are.”

—Daniel J. T. Schuker contributed to the reporting of this story.

—Staff writer Allison A. Frost can be reached at afrost@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff writer Evan H. Jacobs can be reached at ehjacobs@fas.harvard.edu.