I am having trouble, @JBStillFlying , following your speculations regarding these hidden faculty manipulators. If they or he/she truly have a strongly held contrary position on this matter and want to go public with it (as opposed to having an internal discussion with those in charge) are you saying you would be OK with that? I assume that those in charge would not be OK with that. Do I have that right? It would seem to entail at the least a violation of decorum, a break with the chain of command, a breach of collegiality. Having never been an insider in academia I admit I don’t understand the protocol of these things, but I doubt that human nature’s propensity to punish violations of the natural order have been repealed inside walls that happen to have ivy on the outside. Hence my would-be jocular references to the draught of Hemlock and being sent to Coventry. Yes, I believe it would be nice for some of these dissenters to summon the courage to go public. But if those in charge don’t want them to go public, what are they to do except either martyr themselves or have a word with the editors of the Maroon?
I keep making the point and will make it again that the Maroon - with or without input from dissident faculty - is not in full-throated battlecry against this major but is merely seeking some form of disclosure of the details to the whole of the University community. Is that the best the dissidents, if they are operating behind the scenes here, can manage to get from their puppets?
You say that the case needs to be made for the innovation of involving the whole of the University community in the discussion of a new major. But how is that case to be made when the necessary information to make it is ex hypothesi not being provided? How does anyone with a question or potential objection get off that dime?
We are dealing with two innovations here. One of them seems at first blush to be entirely inconsistent with the history of liberal education in the College. The other may be inconsistent with the normal process for introducing a new major. I have to ask myself which of these innovations is the more radical and which should be made first given the inherent conflict between them. To me that’s an easy call. I think any reader of the collected “Aims of Education” talks would find it an easy call. The great figures of the College were always ready to talk about the meaning of a liberal education, and such talk is meaningless if it can’t deal with something as potentially disruptive of the College’s traditions as the introduction of a major designed to teach business skills. It is quite possible - indeed, overwhelmingly probable - that I know nothing of the content of the courses that lead to this major. That is the very reason people like me, including perhaps many current and prospective students, need the enlightenment that an open and robust discussion would bring. I could be convinced by proper information and argument. Being told that it’s no big deal and not something that we need to be concerned about is what upsets more members of the university community, I think, than merely me.