By Alfredo Roman Jordan, Staff Columnist
The faculty at Gettysburg College is currently preparing to vote on proposed changes to the curriculum, which include the addition of a second first-year seminar and two half-credit courses. This proposal has faced significant pushback from faculty members, who have expressed concern about the lack of clarity regarding who will teach these courses. They argue that this will exacerbate the already-existing shortage of faculty in various departments. Additionally, faculty members have raised concerns about the added workload these changes could bring students, as a half-credit course would feel like a fifth course.
Moreover, the proposed curriculum changes could have broader implications for the college’s academic program. A second first-year seminar and two half-credit courses may seem like minor adjustments, but they could impact the College’s ability to offer more specialized courses in the future. By taking up valuable resources, these courses could limit the College’s ability to expand its academic offerings and provide students with a more diverse range of courses. It is essential that the faculty and administration consider the long-term implications of these proposed changes and ensure that they align with the college’s academic mission.
Additionally, the lack of clarity on who will teach the courses is particularly concerning. Hiring additional faculty to teach these courses may be challenging given the current faculty shortage. The administration must address this issue and provide clear plans for how they will address the faculty shortage and ensure that the courses are taught by qualified instructors. It is also crucial that the administration considers the impact of these changes on the workload of current faculty members. If these changes result in an even heavier workload for the current faculty, it could exacerbate the faculty shortage and ultimately harm the college’s academic program.
While the faculty will ultimately vote on this proposed change, the Board of Trustees has also exerted its power by promising an additional million dollars in funding if the proposal passes. This use of financial leverage has been criticized by faculty and students alike, as it sets a dangerous precedent and could allow the Board to withhold funding if they are not satisfied with certain votes.
However, what is most concerning about this situation is the lack of power given to students in the decision-making process. As the ones who could be most affected by these changes, students should have a voice in this decision. It is clear that the curriculum is already crowded with requirements, with 14 of the 32 graduation credits being core curriculum requirements. This makes it challenging for students to explore courses outside of their majors that are not part of the core requirements, as there are not enough credit opportunities to do so. Despite the potential impact on students, we are not given a vote.
The lack of student representation is not unique to this situation. Student Senate at Gettysburg College is ineffective, as the administration can ignore its recommendations. For instance, when the Senate recently passed an opinion to increase student wages, they were only provided with a statement instead of a meeting with the administration to discuss the plan as requested. The Senate president tirelessly attends meetings to address student concerns, but most of these concerns are ignored by the administration.
The proposed curriculum changes at Gettysburg College have highlighted the need for a more transparent and inclusive decision-making process. The lack of student representation and the administration’s disregard for the student governance system is particularly concerning. We, the students are the primary stakeholders in our education, and our voices must be heard in matters that directly affect us. It is crucial that the administration works to create avenues for student input and ensure that our concerns are addressed.
