This letter is to express the Student Senate Committee on General Education Reform's extreme dissatisfaction with the proposed makeup of the committee that will analyze the general education requirement at Ohio University. Through a resolution, the Student Senate has asked for one-third student representation on the committee. However, it appears that this call may be going unanswered.
There has been much discussion in the Faculty Senate regarding the need for shared governance in the decision-making at this university. Faculty Senator Ken Brown has recently proposed, and the Faculty Senate has passed a resolution that calls for, non-voting faculty members on the Board of Trustees, and in OU President McDavis' cabinet, and to have all curriculum committees composed of a majority of faculty members.
Based on this course of events, we find it baffling and disheartening that a body so committed to opening the governance of the school up to its own constituents would be so resistant in extending the same courtesy to another stakeholder.
In the same meeting that the resolution asking for shared governance was first proposed, Brown expressed concern that the days of faculty autonomy over curriculum were over because the trustees required that the university report on general education for its June meeting. This fear is as misguided as it is unfounded. The actions of the trustees were not created by some decree from on high. The Student Senate brought the issue to the trustees as a last resort after what we feel has been years of stonewalling on general education reform. It seemed that the time for action on general education reform finally had come.
However, it appears that what we at first felt was a revolutionary breakthrough has returned to business as usual. In response to the proposal made by the trustees, Faculty Senate chair Phyllis Bernt proposed that a committee be created composed of a majority of faculty members, two deans and only one student. When Student Senate expressed dissatisfaction about the fact that only one student was on the committee, Bernt decided to increase student representation on the committee from one to two. We feel that this is still an unsatisfactory number of students on the committee. As an equal player at this university, we feel that the students deserve a minimum of one-third membership on any committee to analyze general education.
Brown has made statements to the press that he feels there is a conflict of interest in allowing students to have an equal say in the committee. Once again, only two words can adequately describe this sentiment ' misguided and unfounded. Student Senate heard this argument before when the new alcohol policy was proposed ' that somehow a group of experts independent of the student body is needed to create policies, and that student input is hampered by our own bias. However, in regards to that issue, the students were able to draft their own policy recommendation that was well thought out, comprehensive and not the victim of any partiality.
Students at our school are somehow capable of helping to implement Vision Ohio, create the new campus master plan and serve on university budget councils. However, when it comes to deciding the content of our own general education, something every undergraduate must go through at our university, we are somehow fit to serve only in the role of junior partner. We ask the Faculty Senate to practice what it preaches.
If it is truly committed to shared governance, open the general education reform Committee to one-third student representation so we can ensure that a fully inclusive dialogue on educational matters becomes the norm at OU and that the principles of shared governance are finally realized on this important issue.' Dominic Barbato is the Student Senate Chair of the Special Committee on General Education Reform.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
