By Dylan Pichnarcik News Editor The University Curriculum Committee (UCC) hosted an open forum for members of the University community to discuss the proposed new general education model March 14. UCC Chair Michael Greenstein moderated the meeting, and attendees were allotted three minutes to speak. They were limited to one comment per motion until all participants who wished to speak were recognized. During the meeting, Greenstein asked for the model to be voted on at a later date. General Education Advisory Board (GEAB) Chair Patricia Lynne presented the proposed general education model revision. Lynne said she and GEAB have been working on the revised general education model for two years. Lynne outlined goals for the proposed GenEd model. She said general education must be attainable for students; develop students' understanding of diversity; show balanced regard to arts & humanities, STEM, and social sciences; and include interdisciplinary study - which is a requirement for The New England Commission for Higher Education (NECHE) standard 4.17. Regarding the proposed diversity overlay, “power, privilege, and resistance”, Lynne said, “General education, according to our goals, develops students' understanding of diversity, specifically human diversity, and this is something that has been called for by faculty, staff, and administrators for over a decade.” According to NECHE’s Standards for Accreditation, Standard 4.17 states, “The general education requirement in each undergraduate program ensures adequate breadth for all degree-seeking students by showing a balanced regard for what are traditionally referred to as the arts and humanities, the sciences including mathematics, and the social sciences. “General education requirements include offerings that focus on the subject matter and methodologies of these three primary domains of knowledge as well as on their relationships to one another.” The proposed model The first component of the model is the “Core” courses. The four courses under this domain would be the classes “that we believe everybody should take,” Lynne said in an interview with The Gatepost published on February 21. The classes under this domain are a RAMS first-year seminar course, a first-year writing course, a math course, and a world languages course. Students will have a choice of a specific core math course which will be dependent on major requirements. The math requirement must be completed within the first two years of matriculating at the University, according to the proposal. The writing requirement, which is Composition II, must be completed within the first year of matriculating at the University. For the world languages requirement, all students will be required to complete one semester of a world language. The proposed change includes a reconstituting of the learning objectives to take American Sign Language into account. The second domain is “Distribution Requirements.” These classes consist of two arts & humanities courses, two social science courses, and two STEM courses. According to the proposal, courses under arts & humanities “explore human culture, expression, and experience through artistic creation or through critical analysis and interpretation of cultural and artistic artifacts, historical events, and philosophical ideas.” The learning objective of the courses under the social sciences requirement is exploring “human society and behavior through critical analysis of human systems and empirical data gathered using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies,” according to the proposal. The learning objective of the STEM courses is exploring “the natural world, technology, mathematics, and finance through observation, experimentation, data analysis, and the application of mathematical models and technological applications,” according to the proposal. At least one of these courses must still be a lab science course. Students will now also be able to take a 300-level course for a general education requirement. The third domain is the “Diversity” requirement. A student will have to take one course under the diversity domain. Courses under the Diversity domain will be required to meet a “power, privilege, and resistance” learning objective and one additional category: “historically marginalized perspectives,” “global perspectives,” or “social justice.” The “power, privilege, and resistance” courses “examine and critically analyze how differential systems of power and privilege shape social, economic, and/or political inequalities in local, regional, and/or global contexts across diverse and marginalized communities as well as consider collective and individual responses to forms of oppression and inequality,” according to the proposal. [ Editor’s Note: For more information regarding the proposed GenEd model, see “New GenEd proposal under review” in the Feb. 21 edition of The Gatepost. ] Subcommittee feedback Before opening the floor for discussion, Greenstein outlined the discussions from the UCC subcommittee meetings from the previous week. He said one of the three subcommittees requested additional time to meet and discuss the proposal and their respective “logs.” According to Greenstein, concerns raised at the Subcommittee A meeting were that the proposed model “does not prepare students adequately for the present world.” He said this point was made multiple times during the subcommittee meeting. Greenstein said another concern raised at the meeting was about the lack of interdisciplinarity in the proposed model. He said attendees of the Subcommittee A meeting appreciated the flexibility of the proposed model but said it “is lacking any sort of incentive for participation by students in studio courses or in film and music courses in general.” He added people at the meeting expressed concern that due to the current political climate, “Maybe we should be focusing more on things like the U.S. Constitution, rather than less on those things.” Greenstein said another concern raised at the meeting was a “lack of focus” on oral presentation skills or distinctive teaching methodologies in Arts & Humanities in the new model. He added, “There was substantial discussion about the stance of World Languages in the general education model, concerns for both its positioning in the core or recommendations against that.” Concerns raised at the Subcommittee B meeting were about “what it means to be a primary field of study, which needs clarification, both within the model and then for students and advisors to understand it,” according to Greenstein. He added there was concern about “what it means that prefixes are defining things. Who defines prefixes? How are prefixes dealt with? And again, concerns that students and faculty don't understand what prefixes are and how they impact the general education model as proposed.” Greenstein noted additional concerns brought up at the meeting about math being included in the core as courses only taught by the math department, rather than including quantitative reasoning classes. Including quantitative reasoning courses would help transfer students who may have taken a course that qualifies for that core that was not taught by mathematics faculty in their previous institution. “Members on Subcommittee C also had a substantial discussion about interdisciplinary courses, how they get treated, and concerns about whether this model is actually enhancing the use of interdisciplinary courses and how interdisciplinary courses are going to be created,” Greenstein said. “There was discussion about lab requirements, whether they actually stay, or whether the model is firm in its staying. “The distribution requirements lacked clear learning objectives. There was concern about the diversity objective itself, whether that should be in the core, and how it's currently being treated as an overlay, and what that means,” he added. Greenstein said there were concerns at the Subcommittee C meeting about whether teaching technology and the RAMS courses should be included in the model. Attendees of the subcommittee meeting also discussed whether 300-level courses should be included in the model and what that would mean. Discussion of NECHE Standards 4.16 and 4.17 A motion was made by English Professor Kristen Abbott Bennett, UCC member, that the proposed model does not meet the NECHE 4.16 or 4.17 Standards. The motion was seconded by Professor of Art Timothy McDonald, UCC member. Abbott Bennett said, “I see this model failing to meet them. … Right now, this model has no … civic literacy, which I think we need to [have] in 2025. There's no technology requirement, which you absolutely need to prepare students for the world that they will live in.” According to NECHE’s Standards for Accreditation, Standard 4.16 reads, “It reflects the institution's mission and values and embodies the institution's definition of an educated person and prepares students for the world in which they will live. The requirement informs the design of all general education courses, and provides criteria for its evaluation, including the assessment of what students learn.” Abbott Bennett said, “The cutting back to one math class and to cut back on computational thinking, I think is also a failure to prepare students for the world that they will live in under the current Trump administration. In 2025, we’re seeing more censorship at the high-school level. If we are responsible for creating well-educated students, then a lot more is going to come down on us.” She added, “To be fair, GEAB composed these logs before the administration, before all the censorship, but we'll have to do a lot more heavy lifting to fulfill our motto, ‘Live to the Truth.’ Abbott Bennett said the proposed model “puts every department in competition with every other department, making scheduling a challenge.” She also raised concerns that students will be unable to get classes required for their major. English Department Chair Lisa Eck agreed with Abbott Bennett that the proposed model does not meet NECHE’s standards. Eck said, “There were so many good ideas flying around but when I came back from my sabbatical, I really didn't recognize this model because of what is still missing and what it makes invisible to our students.” She added some of the “good” ideas from her time on the GEAB committee, such as students having the chance to take creative courses, are “devalued by not having their own domain. “Right now, we have a [proposed] distribution model where creative writing courses compete with history courses, digital humanities compete with literature courses, but it's all just one big mix,” Eck said. Eck said she was also concerned about “siloing the three schools” and that creative courses aren’t visible to students. She said the current model is much more evenly distributed and is “much more rigorous when it comes to 4.17.” Eck said voting on the current model “feels rushed.” In response to the motion, Philosophy Professor Joseph D’Andrea asked if approving the motion would mean the proposed GenEd model would be “done.” D’Andrea said he did not want to take a vote that “is in essence going to bury the whole proposal.” History Department Chair Maria Bollettino said she thinks one of the “fuzziest” sections of 4.16 is what the University's definition of an educated person is. Bollettino said she is an advocate for a “civic literacy overlay.” She added there was not a question in the general education survey that asked, “Would you like to see a civic literacy overlay?” She said a question that was asked on the survey was, “Would you like to see expressive work completed by students?” The responses to that question “were off the charts … but that's nowhere in our model.” Bollettino said, “I think people are feeling like there's a disconnect between what we do know we value as an institution, and what we expect in terms of the education of our students.” History Professor Stefan Papaioannou, GEAB member, said “it's hasty” to vote right now and say the proposed model doesn't meet NECHE standards. “I think there would have to be a longer discussion, but I would say that it very much does meet those standards, and certainly more than our current model,” he said. Fashion Design & Retailing Professor Laura Kane said based on the description of “skills in general education” on the framingham.edu website, students will demonstrate a critical understanding of human diversity, demonstrate a critical understanding of civil literacy, solve problems using creative thinking, and demonstrate technological competency. Additionally, students will recognize ethical and social responsibilities and communicate orally effectively. Kane said, “These are some of the things that we currently have defined as what embodies an educated person, and that is where I feel like this new model does not meet our definition of what we want our general education to be.” English Professor Desmond McCarthy said the current model focuses on problem solving, critical thinking, communication, and preparing to be an informed citizen.” The proposed model “favors disciplines, or at least colleges, over skills,” McCarthy said. “I think a lot of skills and competencies are necessary to be a well-educated 21st century citizen - to have exposure to a range of skills that you need to be a good college student. I think this is very discipline-specific, and I just don't think that's what general education is,” said McCarthy. Math Professor Matthew Moynihan said, “One of the struggles in this area is that when we discuss the current model and we reference learning objectives, we're referencing something in this really nebulous state. Students are not required to complete learning objectives. “Only 5% do, so it makes it really hard to say that our current model implements something if it is based on learning objectives. I also see some strong differences by college in how we approach this concept, and it makes me question, and I do mean this as a question, some of the comments about balance,” he said. According to Moynihan, in the current GenEd model, there are 62 GenEd courses in STEM, 64 courses in Social and Behavioral Sciences (ESBS), and 129 courses in Arts & Humanities. He said the math department has 11 GenEd courses that fall under Domain II-A. Biology, Chemistry, and Food Science have seven, which fall under Domain II-B. “The English department has 31 courses - well, let's say 30, set aside the writing - that fall into six of the eight different subdomains. We’re clearly looking at this very, very differently,” Moynihan said. English Professor Rachel Trousdale said she thought the conversation was presenting the only options as keeping the model that the University currently has or moving to approve the proposed model as it stands. “I recognize how much work has already gone into the model that's proposed, but I feel that there are probably other alternatives. One of the arguments that I have been hearing, not in this meeting, but being made in general, is, ‘We've already put so much work into this model. We'd better go with it.’ “I don't think that people who are identifying difficulties are necessarily saying we have to stick with the existing model, but I think that we could valuably look at further alternatives, even though I recognize that’s a very painful thing to hear,” Trousdale said. English Professor Bartholomew Brinkman said the proposed model will cause an interdisciplinary course such as Introduction to Digital Humanities to “fall through the cracks.” He said the new model “does not seem to serve” interdisciplinary courses “as robustly as it could. “I think there are some disciplines like English that are striving for that interdisciplinarity and have found that through those different subdomains,” said Brinkman. He said, “It's a little bit of a red herring to say that only 5% of students fulfill all the GenEd objectives and learning objectives, and therefore, the model's not working. “We didn't really even know that until we went into review, which suggests to me that while that is something to address, either we bolster those objectives or we consider the current model without those objectives,” he added. Brinkman said, “Largely, that model has functioned, and the GenEd objectives are sort of a separate issue.” Mathematics Department Chair Michael Krul, GEAB member, said there is nothing in the proposed GenEd model that prohibits the introduction of additional overlays, such as the lab or the diversity overlay as they sit right now, specifically including civic engagement, technology, or oral communication. He said GEAB did not believe they had the authority to make “those types of recommendations. “There was no mandate for them in all of our survey data. We would very, very much like to see all of those things in this model. However, that's something UCC should add, whether it's this year or as the model is being implemented next year, just because we don't really have an infrastructure for it,” he said. Dean of STEM Lauren Nolfo-Clements said, “I really think we should have the conversation about why we would reject it [the proposed model] on these grounds, because this is very, very broad language, and we need to understand why people are not satisfied.” After discussion, the motion made by Abbott Bennett failed, with eight members of UCC voting that the proposed model does meet NECHE’s 4.16 and 4.17 standards, while seven members of UCC voted that it does not. According to Greenstein, abstentions were not announced per Robert’s Rules of Order. World language requirement Greenstein said the proposed model currently requires students to take a world language course. Enrollment Management Vice President Iris Godes, UCC member, said there are few institutions that require students to take a world language as part of GenEd. She said, “Typically, it's attached more to particular majors where it is critical. And so it just concerns me from a competitive standpoint that we continue to have that as a requirement. Justifying it on the recruitment side of things, it is a common question that students ask whether or not it's required. “Having worked at a school prior to here where it was not required, it was frequently asked, and when they were told no, it was a huge relief and kept us on the list,” Godes added. World Languages Department Chair Emilce Cordeiro said, “I think that in our mission, we state that we need to serve the community we are in.” She added around Framingham, “We have a desperate need for teachers and for people who speak the languages, especially Portuguese and Spanish, and we are not supplying the schools with the teachers they need. “I really think that is going to be a disservice to our students if they don't have a language requirement. We are always comparing ourselves with institutions that, in a way, are less rigorous,” she said. D’Andrea said he supported the idea of keeping world languages in the model. “It serves our goal of stretching the students toward diversity really well in the Framingham community and in the globe. It is the paradigm for thinking as someone from a culture that's not your own,” he said. World Languages Professor Ińes Vañó García said removing the language requirement would be counterproductive given the current political climate. She said, “We need to educate ourselves about the linguistic landscape that we live in and act accordingly.” Nolfo-Clements asked if the world language requirement could be “encompassed in a more broad diversity requirement that can be placed in the core.” Dean of ESBS Susan Dargan, GEAB member, said the “power, privilege, and resistance” overlay in the proposed model “is not just about understanding another culture, but understanding the implications of power dynamics on cultures. So the class couldn't just be on the mechanics of language. I would be opposed to that as a diversity goal because of what we intended for that goal.” Anthropology Professor Benjamin Alberti said he supports having a language requirement in the proposed model. He said not having the requirement is “going in the wrong direction in terms of educating our students. I'd also like to support Emilce’s point that our population here makes absolute sense that we have a language requirement.” Another open forum will be held on April 4. [ Editor’s Note: Desmond McCarthy is the advisor for The Gatepost. ]