By Katie Oglesby, Editor-in-Chief
Thursday’s faculty meeting consisted of President Bob Iuliano’s initial remarks and a continued conversation about the proposed changes to the Gettysburg Curriculum.
Iuliano began the meeting following up on the announcement of Dr. Jamila Bookwala from Lafayette College as the new provost for Gettysburg College. She will begin work in July 2023.
Iuliano praised her passion and ability as a teacher-scholar, her administrative experience, her commitment to student-focused education and her commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, as well as her sense of humility about her work.
“She is very excited to join this faculty and be a part of this community,” said Iuliano.
Iuliano also noted that there was a ceremony earlier in the day for Jake and Elizabeth Paul joining the Benefactor’s Wall. To join this wall, you must contribute at least one million dollars to the College.
He expressed the Paul family’s generosity toward both the Sunderman Conservatory and the Musselman Library.
Proposed Curriculum Changes
This meeting continued the conversation about the proposed curriculum changes that the faculty had been discussing for the past two meetings. These conversations still focused solely on the two first-year seminars. The conversation ended with a straw poll, an unofficial vote for the Curriculum Review Committee to gauge support (or lack thereof) for the proposal.
Assistant Professor of Art and Art History Nicholas Miller explained that the Board of Trustees has allotted one million dollars toward implementation, including stipends and pedagogical and professional development for professors. He said that if every full-time faculty member were to teach one first-year seminar every other year, they would be fully staffed.
Associate Provost for Academic Assessment and Dean of Natural Sciences, Computer Science and Mathematics Darren Glass later clarified that all full-time faculty members are not expected to teach first-year seminars, but that they have the numbers amongst full-time faculty members that would allow for full staffing. He said that they expect some part-time faculty members to contribute to staffing, as well as some professors teaching more often than every other year, to make up for any discrepancies.
English Professor Melissa Forbes said that the English department is concerned about implementation and oversight, and plans to make an amendment once the proposal is on the floor.
Laboratory Instructor and Director of Hatter Planetarium Ian Clarke said that he started at the College teaching first-year writing, and has taught it as recently as 2020.
“We’re being asked to change the way we administer the first-year writing requirement,” he said, explaining that his concern lies with wanting to know the pedagogy associated with the courses.
He said at the moment he wouldn’t vote ‘yes’ unless this pedagogy could be explained further.
Chair of the English Department Kathryn Rhett echoed what Forbes earlier said about the amendment from the department.
Rhett explained that the department has “serious reservations” and that the amendment will ask for oversight of first-year writing to remain in the English department. She said that many in the department hope the curriculum won’t pass at all, but if it does, are afraid of oversight leaving where the “field expertise resides.”
A professor from the physics department expressed concern about staffing, and noted that it was important to look at this from a departmental level.
A biology professor said she was worried about two first-year seminars being taught in one year, and was looking for more flexibility for students, like some she know on the pre-medicine track that have very full schedules even in their first year on campus.
Chair of the History Department Dina Lowy also expressed a staffing concern for her department. She said half of the department already participates in the first-year seminar program every other year and they can’t have any more professors than that teaching the seminars given their departmental needs.
She echoed other professors’ concerns about wanting clearer learning goals established as part of the proposal, as well as concern about packing too much into the first-year seminars. She said the seminars are already meant to teach content, introduce students to college life, provide information literacy, and introduce students to campus and its resources.
Professor of Economics Charles Weise asked, “Are we holding the new curriculum to higher standards than what we already have?”
He asked whether the flaws in the proposed curriculum worse than what is already in place, if the current curriculum has its own flaws and concerns about staffing.
Assistant Professor of Classics Rachel Lesser said she was in support of the proposed changes in their current form, especially because of issues in writing that she has seen in many of her students. She said even her best students have room for improvement in their writing.
She expressed excitement at learning the current best practices to teach writing.
She also noted that if writing is taught in all first-year seminars to create a foundational understanding, it might not need to be taught so intensively in other courses.
Forbes addressed some of the concerns, saying that the part-time faculty that teach first-year writing already are some of the most qualified to do it. She noted that there will be a few shared outcomes for the seminars, but that it will largely be left to the professor’s discretion. She also clarified that the two first-year seminars might be able to split up responsibilities, addressing Lowy’s concern.
Professor of English Christopher Fee said that staffing is the largest concern for the English department because their “first and foremost concern is departmental.”
He said that the faculty best suited for it should have oversight, highlighting his preference toward oversight remaining with the English department as it pertains to first-year writing.
As discussion ended, Iuliano took a straw poll of the faculty members. They voted whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “I support the full credit seminars as they are presented in the proposal, knowing that the changes may later be made via amendment.”
The votes were not counted, though the faculty seemed largely split on the matter, with many in the English department, amongst scattered others, comprising the “no” votes.
