2008 Woodie Awards
Editor's Column: Curriculum belongs to all
Issue date: 11/3/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
On Wednesday, Oct. 18, a forum was held to discuss the findings reported by the Working Group on General Education. (The report can be viewed here: http://www.sju.edu/academics/cr/docs/GEP924.pdf.) For most students, this forum meant simply that one more day was added to fall break. But a small group of students, interested as all students should be in the future of the University, decided to forgo that day off to sit in on the conference, hear what the faculty had to say, and voice their own opinions. However, the Curriculum Review Steering Committee decided to deny students access to the event, citing time constraints and stating that the forum's main purpose as being primarily for discussions among faculty members.
While the faculty certainly should have opportunities to discuss their own feelings on the ongoing curriculum review, the significance of this particular event should have mandated that it be open to all parties with a vested interest in the proceedings. Though current students will not be directly affected by any changes made to the GER, they nonetheless should, and have a right to, care about the future of the University and be actively involved in its development. Many members of the faculty and administration, including Father Lannon, have encouraged students' interest in the review process, and many professors - including Catherine Murray, associate professor of psychology and Chair of the Steering Committee - openly encouraged students to attend the forum.
Students are already involved in the curriculum review in limited capacities, mainly through the handful of students sitting on the working groups (which have now served their purposes); still, that involvement is no replacement for having students actually present during important discussions like the forum two weeks ago. The faculty alone does not own the curriculum, and, though immensely valuable, they are only one source of insight into this important issue. The members of the Steering Committee opposed to student attendance took away what would have been a great opportunity for both students and professors. This group of interested students would have had a chance to voice their opinions to 200 faculty members in a formal setting, and the professors would have had the chance to hear important insights not easily reached from their own points of view, which would give them a more well-rounded idea of the best ways to proceed.
While the faculty certainly should have opportunities to discuss their own feelings on the ongoing curriculum review, the significance of this particular event should have mandated that it be open to all parties with a vested interest in the proceedings. Though current students will not be directly affected by any changes made to the GER, they nonetheless should, and have a right to, care about the future of the University and be actively involved in its development. Many members of the faculty and administration, including Father Lannon, have encouraged students' interest in the review process, and many professors - including Catherine Murray, associate professor of psychology and Chair of the Steering Committee - openly encouraged students to attend the forum.
Students are already involved in the curriculum review in limited capacities, mainly through the handful of students sitting on the working groups (which have now served their purposes); still, that involvement is no replacement for having students actually present during important discussions like the forum two weeks ago. The faculty alone does not own the curriculum, and, though immensely valuable, they are only one source of insight into this important issue. The members of the Steering Committee opposed to student attendance took away what would have been a great opportunity for both students and professors. This group of interested students would have had a chance to voice their opinions to 200 faculty members in a formal setting, and the professors would have had the chance to hear important insights not easily reached from their own points of view, which would give them a more well-rounded idea of the best ways to proceed.
Be the first to comment on this story