To the Editor:
Systemic change in college governance, college curricula, or anything else, requires attention and adaptation over time. Like Mark Bauerlein and Scott Yenor ( “Professors Ruined Gen Ed. Florida is Fixing It.,” The Chronicle Review, December 16), I too view with concern the proliferation of DEI initiatives and the deterioration of general education requirements. However, not everything with a DEI label — or any label — is necessarily good or bad. I disagree with Bauerlein and Yenor on two important points: elected officials should play no role in curricular decisions, and the broadening of the curriculum to include non-Western and under-represented subjects is essential. I propose moving away from an inoculation model, in which specific courses are required for whatever purpose, and toward a leavening of the curriculum such that most humanities and social science courses, especially in the first two years, include geographic, historic, generic, and cultural variety. Curricular problems require that the faculty do what it has always done: debate, test, learn, and evolve over time. We do not need administrators and politicians to “step in and fix the system,” as if a curriculum can, or ever should be, fixed. As Bauerlein and Yenor point out, administrators control budgets, space, and the funding of faculty lines. Faculty members control what is taught and who is hired.
To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.
Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for less than $10/month.
Don’t have an account? Sign up now.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
If you need assistance, please contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com.