Dissenting Opinion: Don’t Delay Curricular Review

It is unquestionable that Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby’s decision to step down at the end of the academic year and the imminent search for a new dean will dramatically change Faculty politics and policies. These events should not, however, derail or delay a curricular review already in its advanced stages, one that stands to improve the Harvard College academic experience dramatically.

Enough has been written about the failures of the Core Curriculum on this page, and as of late, nearly as much has been written supporting the current direction of the Harvard College Curricular Review (HCCR). In particular, the Committee on General Education’s recommendations, which propose that students satisfy general education requirements with departmental courses or foundational and integrative courses in general education, look promising. By increasing the flexibility and creating a competitive market for courses, the curricular review stands to drastically improve the fundamental nature of a Harvard education.

The clear and drastic benefits of this new system vis-à-vis the Core make its timely implementation of the utmost importance. Both current and prospective students want to know that they are coming to Harvard to get the best education in the world. If that is to be the case, the new system should be implemented as soon as possible.

That is not to say that the Faculty should not carefully consider the HCCR—they should scrutinize it as much as is necessary. Yet any additional delay will cause considerable harm to students’ academic experiences. This harm outweighs the need of the dean of the Faculty to feel “ownership” over a curriculum which must invariably be constructed and approved by the entire Faculty.

After nearly three-and-a-half years, the HCCR is now in its final stages. After convening committees and publishing and vetting reports and recommendations, Kirby announced last week that legislation about the review, including the new general education system, would begin to come before the Faculty this spring. The HCCR has been considered extensively, and should not be impeded by the search for a dean at such an advanced stage. Furthermore, short of catastrophically halting the review and starting from scratch, it would be difficult for a new dean to put his or her stamp on a review that has already progressed so far.

Delaying the review until there is a new dean of the Faculty also makes no sense in terms of continuity of governance. A new dean does not fundamentally change the institution of the Faculty but merely its leadership. Just as new presidents of the United States have to execute laws influenced by their predecessors, deans have to carry out policies created by their predecessors and approved by the Faculty, which includes a curricular system. Indeed, Houghton Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry Jeremy R. Knowles did not change the curriculum when he took office in 1991, and Richard H. Broadhead, who oversaw the curricular review at Yale, left soon after Yale implemented the review he oversaw.

The notion that a new dean could not implement a system he or she did not have a hand in creating is flawed. Furthermore, critics of the HCCR should not use Kirby’s resignation as an excuse to delay the HCCR instead of attacking it outright. Rather, the Faculty should continue to consider, debate, and vote on the HCCR as scheduled even with an ongoing dean search.

Adam M. Guren ’08, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is an economics concentrator in Eliot House.