The University of Minnesota’s Faculty Senate held a special session Tuesday to discuss and revote on a proposed change in the University’s core curriculum, which originally failed in an April 3 session.
The session drew controversy as some faculty criticized the meeting and conversation surrounding the updated core curriculum.
Ten percent of faculty senate members can call a special session, and a previously defeated motion can be reconsidered. However, supporters of a defeated motion calling a special session to vote again is atypical, Faculty Senator Nathaniel Mills said.
The Core Curriculum 2025 proposal aims to replace the current liberal education requirements for undergraduate students at the University with a different framework. Proposed in January 2022, the update has faced mixed responses among faculty.
Proponents for the update say the proposal would help students prepare for life after graduation, but critics argue the change could dramatically affect enrollment in certain studies and undermine the importance of the humanities.
The senate session faced scrutiny among faculty members, as many questioned the ability of organizers to hold a special meeting solely for the purpose of revisiting and voting on a topic that had already been discussed and voted on.
Some members of the senate claimed Provost Rachel Croson and Vice Provost Raj Singh attempted to interfere with the second senate vote by openly criticizing the senate for voting against the proposal in the initial session and allegedly soliciting votes.
Others claimed that, in the original April 3 session, College of Liberal Arts Assembly Chair JB Shank misrepresented CLA Assembly votes and showed a preference toward arguments against the proposal.
“Information suggests that the opinions and expertise of the CLA faculty was misrepresented in the discussion of this new proposal and such misrepresentation might have weakened the support for the new core curriculum,” Faculty Senate members wrote in an email. “We hereby call for a special meeting of the Twin Cities Faculty Senators so that more appropriate procedures can be followed and so that the CLA Assembly vote can be more accurately presented with correct information.”
Shank shot down the accusations in an email to the Faculty Senate. He called the claims brought against him laughable and fabricated, to serve a particular political agenda.
Mills said the criticism placed on Shank is targeted, and the grounds for the second session itself were misguided.
“The justification for the special session – that CLA Assembly Chair Professor JB Shank lied about the extent of CLA faculty opposition to the Common Core proposal – was both factually dubious and, as an unfair targeted attack on a faculty member, beyond the bounds of decorum and collegiality,” Mills said in a statement.
Mills is not alone in his sentiment, as many of his colleagues feel that the senate’s efforts were worrying. Fellow senator Karen-Sue Taussig felt that because of the manner in which the sessions and discussions were conducted, the conversation surrounding the proposal did not get the time it deserved.
“They tried to cram into a one-hour session an issue that would completely change the curriculum,” Taussig said. “That ends up meaning that there can’t really be a free give-and-take of ideas.”
Still, some feel that the curriculum change could serve the University well. Executive Director of Undergraduate Admissions Keri Risic said changing to a modern curriculum could improve the educational value students receive at the University.
“Establishing a modern core curriculum designed to meet evolving workforce needs will help the U of M stand apart and be understood quickly by the public,” Risic said in the session.
Correction: A previous version of this article said Keri Risic is a faculty senator. Risic is not a member of the Faculty Senate because she is not a faculty member. She is an administrator.
