Core Values and Academic Freedom

[asteriskea]

<p>“Professors Clash Over Bollinger”</p>

<p>

Faculty members presented a letter to top administrators Tuesday condemning University President Lee Bollinger for creating a “crisis of confidence” and accusing the University’s administration of inadequately protecting academic freedom on campus.</p>

<p>…The statement, which an endorser said was signed by 109 professors, accuses Bollinger of failing to rebuke outsiders’ criticism and attempts to influence tenure decisions of Columbia scholars…</p>

<p>“We speak for a growing number of faculty members at Columbia University who believe that President Bollinger has failed to make a vigorous defense of the core principles on which the University is founded, especially academic freedom,” the statement reads. “The events of the past few years have created a crisis of confidence in the central administration’s willingness to defend these principles.”</p>

<p>In a University statement, spokesman Robert Hornsby said, “Freedom of speech on campus means that faculty members have the right to express their views, including about the University itself. And it’s certainly part of Columbia’s tradition to have a thriving intellectual debate about higher education’s role as a forum for the challenging public issues of our time.”…</p>

<p>Many of the professors who signed the letter—including Hamid Dabashi, Rashid Khalidi, and George Saliba—have found themselves at the center of Columbia controversies before and have a history of harshly condemning Bollinger. Signatories include Mark Anderson, Elizabeth Blackmar, Eric Foner, Peter Marcuse, James Schamus, Mark Strand, and Nadia Abu El-Haj. Two of the endorsers—Jonathan Cole and Gayatri Spivak—have attained the rank of University Professor, the highest honor bestowed on Columbia faculty members. Cole, a former candidate for University presidency, resigned from his previous position as University Provost a month before Bollinger took the helm.</p>

<p>A dissenting letter is also making the rounds, with 62 professors signing on as of Tuesday…</p>

<p>The signers of the dissenting statement argue that outside groups have an interest in the University and the right to speak out against what they deem “inappropriate forms of teaching.”

</p>

<p>[Professors</a> Clash Over Bollinger | Columbia Spectator](<a href=“Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator”>Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator)</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>“Columbia University Faculty Action Committee Statement of Concern”</p>

<p>[Columbia</a> University Faculty Action Committee Statement of Concern | Columbia Spectator](<a href=“Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator”>Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator)</p>

<p>also in the same edition of the Columbia Spectator:</p>

<p>“As Hundreds Rally, CU Agrees to Core Reform”</p>

<p>[As</a> Hundreds Rally, CU Agrees to Core Reform | Columbia Spectator](<a href=“Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator”>Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator)</p>

<p>

Among other concessions, a spokesman said the University has committed to pay funds for the expansion of the Office of Multicultural Affairs and to transform the major cultures requirement of the Core Curriculum into a seminar style class, which the coalition said would was a $50 million transformation. Currently, students choose their major cultures course fulfillments from lists of lectures and seminars across several different departments and regions…

</p>

[WiseOWL]

<p>As to the potential change in the major cultures requirement of the core curriculum, I think this has long been up for discussion and debate way before the student hunger strikes. With every student I interview for CC and SEAS I always go over the content of the core and its various parts. I was at Columbia prior to the initiation of the major cultures requirement or Frontiers of Science so I am not as familiar with theses as the more traditional parts of the core such as CC or Lit Hum. The new requirements however have always seemed to me to not quite fit, not so much for their content but rather for their structure. One of the highlights of the core has always been the small class size along with the in-depth analysis and discussion of great works of literature, philosophy, art, music, etc. These new additions always seemed to stand out as being different not only in content but in the way students were taught the material. Younger alums and current students may be better at commenting on this than I am but at least as far as I can tell, they are also less popular with the students. Long before the strike it appeared that the administration listened to student complaints and have been active in trying to find better ways at teaching science or non-western issues in the core. Why is Frontiers of Science seemingly so unpopular?? Why is the current major cultures requirement being attacked? I agree with the idea that these are probably better taught in “seminar” styles class settings similar to the older parts of the core, but that takes dollars to make it happen, money that the university did not see fit to spend at the time. Although the strikers did not cause the university to change their mind (I think this discussion has been going on for years), it may have pushed them in some positive direction to overall improve the level of education in the core through style as opposed to content.</p>

[Denzera]

<p>well, part of the problem with frontiers of science may be its absolutely ■■■■■■■■ curriculum, which presumes its highly selected, intensely competitive and well-educated incoming students have never been inside a science class or been exposed to scientific method or research. other than that, there’s not much wrong with it :)</p>

<p>*second-hand information, FYI.</p>