Keeping Students Far Away From the Core

WHEN THE STANDING COMMITTEE on the Core Curriculum releases the official 1979-80 listings of Core courses in a few weeks, undergraduates will see the program for the first time. Dean Rosovsky has kept discussion of the Core behind closed doors and beyond the grasp of students. Rosovsky capped his policy of stifling student involvement when he asked the Core committee two weeks ago not to divulge any information even about the 38 courses that had already been approved by the group. The few students who serve on the standing committee or its subcommittees were forbidden to solicit opinions about proposed courses from fellow undergraduates.

The non-voting status of the students on these committees underscores the purely symbolic function they serve.

Rosovsky contends that undergraduates now enrolled should not expect a hand in creating courses that will affect only future generations of students. The shallowness of this statement becomes apparent when the logic is applied to the Faculty--some of whom will leave Harvard, some of whom will not choose to teach Core courses. Moreover, Rosovsky is implicitly denying that students have a valid perspective on their own educations. The Faculty created the Core Curriculum to replace the flawed and misdirected General Education program. As students under Gen Ed's sway, present undergraduates have a unique outlook on the program. They are well qualified to suggest ways in which the Faculty might best avoid repeating these mistakes.

FINALLY, Rosovksy argues that he must keep the committee meetings confidential to avoid embarrassing professors whose proposed courses are rejected by the committee. It would seem that professors' vanities are taking precedence over educational quality.

The committee must approve a second slate of Core courses next year. This time, the panel should encourage student participation, perhaps through undergraduate committees in the various departments, perhaps through the student-faculty departmental committees mandated by the Faculty this week. Almost any approach would be an improvement.