Gen Ed Draft Causes Stir in Faculty Meeting

Economists want more economics. English professors want more literature. And historians want more history. Among the areas of study proposed in the recently unveiled general-education report, the only field many professors don’t seem to want more of is religion.

At yesterday’s meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, professors had their first chance to discuss publicly the preliminary report of the Committee on General Education, released in early October. Many used the meeting as a forum to challenge both the report’s specific recommendations and its underlying vision.

The new proposal, according to Professor of Philosophy Alison Simmons, a co-chair of this year’s General Education committee, attempts to address the two main criticisms of last year’s report: a perceived lack of structure and rationale.

The report recommends that students complete courses in five broad areas of inquiry: “Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change,” “The Ethical Life,” “The United States and the World,” “Reason and Faith,” and “Science and Technology.”

Many professors at yesterday’s meeting called those categories both inappropriate and incomplete.

“Science should not be isolated in a ghetto titled, ‘Science and Technology,” said John Y. Campbell, the Olshan professor of economics, who emphasized the role of scientific reasoning in studying a wide range of human behavior.

Angeliki E. Laiou, the Oaks professor of Byzantine history, objected to “The United States and the World” requirement.

Laiou said the name “suggests that either the United States is not really a part of the world or, alternatively, that they are two entities of equal importance.”

The report calls for students to take two classes under “The United States and the World” category, one on American society and one on global society.

“I think this will lead us to really unpleasant conclusions as to how we see the world as a sort of backyard of the United States,” Laiou said.

Perhaps the most consistent criticism the report faced, from professors across the disciplines, was that it overemphasized present-day issues.

The report’s authors said they were aware of this criticism. In a letter addressed to the Faculty, sent on Nov. 9, the report’s co-authors wrote, “We do not propose that we teach the headlines, only that the headlines, along with much else in their lives, are among the things that a liberal education can help students make better sense of.”

In contrast to the current Core Curriculum, which focuses on approaches to knowledge, the new proposal strives to connect a student’s liberal arts education to life outside the classroom.

Reid Professor of English Philip Fisher argued that this underlying principle is flawed.

“Students need to know the methods, and not just the results,” Fisher said.

Some professors questioned the need for a new program of general education at all.

“Basically, you’re going to replace a system of general education whose basic philosophy is one with which a great number of the Faculty members agree,” Laiou said.

N. Gregory Mankiw, the Beren professor of economics, said he might prefer distribution requirements, the defining feature of last year’s report, over the more structured and interdisciplinary categories of this one.

But Buttenwieser University Professor Stanley Hoffman disagreed.

“You have to do this in an interdisciplinary way,” said Hoffman, an historian of France.

“George Bernard Shaw once said, ‘People who are merely specialists are basically idiots,’” Hoffman said, looking in Mankiw’s direction. “I don’t take it as my model, but there’s something to it.”

Several professors raised concerns with the “Reason and Faith” requirement, which calls for students to study the interaction between religion and secular institutions.

“The category brings together an uneasy combination of goals that don’t fit together very well,” said Thomas M. Scanlon, Jr., the Alford professor of natural religion, moral philosophy, and civil polity. He recommended dropping the requirement altogether.

Only Diana L. Eck, the Wertham professsor of law and psychiatry in society, defended the “Reason and Faith” requirement at yesterday’s meeting.

“You need to open up the papers and have some basic literacy of what’s going on within religious communities,” she said.

Eck called it “a tremendous vote of intellectual astuteness” that the six faculty members of the General Education committee, none of whom primarily study religion, recognized the importance of the field in today’s world.

In light of the attention the “Reason and Faith” requirement received from the national media, professors also raised concerns about the recent report’s audience.

Fisher said the report should address “a general education program for Harvard, and not for the world or American higher-level education at large.”

“I hope we will write a program that will not depend on the image of a city on a hill,” Fisher said.

The difficult task of finalizing the recommendations is not yet over. The December Faculty meeting has been reserved for consideration of a revised version of the general-education proposal, according to Judith L. Ryan, a member of the docket committee entrusted with determining the agenda of faculty meetings.

“In the best case, we hope to reach some kind of consensus by the end of this term,” said Ryan, who is the Weary professor of German and comparative literature.

While many professors at yesterday’s meeting took issue with specific elements of the report, the recommendations also drew some supporters.

“I applaud the ambition of the committee. It’s the best thing I’ve read since the 1947 Report on General Education,” said Peter J. Gomes, the Plummer professor of Christian morals.

Hoffman said, “I want to commend the committee, which did a heroic job. I want to haggle. We will haggle. We always haggle. But I think they had it right.”

—Staff Writer Johannah S. Cornblatt can be reached at jcornblatt@fas.harvard.edu.

—Staff Writer Samuel P. Jacobs can be reached at jacobs@fas.harvard.edu.