To the Editor:

I write to correct some misconceptions and partial information about the process of “curriculum change” at Smith that were communicated during the all-college meeting on Monday afternoon.

It is true, as [Professor] Ginetta Candelario noted, that one way in which curriculum change takes place at Smith is through the hiring of new faculty members, at least some of whom will teach courses that are not otherwise being taught at Smith. But that is only a small part of the process, and not, I think, the major way in which change has taken place over the nearly four decades that I have been a member of the faculty.

Officially, the body that has “control” over the curriculum – the courses that are offered, the requirements for graduation, etc. – is the Committee on Academic Policy, an elected faculty committee that reviews proposals for new courses, for new majors and minors, for concentrations and for changes in majors. It was also the committee that oversaw the implementation of the “writing-intensive” requirement.

But most of the business of that committee comes to it from faculty members. And, in fact, most new courses in the curriculum, ideas for concentrations, etc. also come from faculty members. Virtually all of the curricular initiatives that have developed in recent decades arose not from new hires, but from faculty members already on campus, who recognized an unmet need, or whose own interests changed, often in response to either student requests or their own engagements with the world both within and outside Smith, and who educated themselves to enable them to teach this new material.

Thus, the study of women and gender, of Afro-American Studies, courses on globalization, on queer issues, on immigration, on biochemistry, neurobiology, neuroscience, engineering and on an enormous range of other social justice-related issues arose from faculty members. On more than one occasion, I am sure, faculty member interests were impelled by questions or concerns expressed by students – either in their classes or outside them – who wanted ways to study materials or issues that were not already being taught. And many of us – as faculty members – have grown enormously in response to our efforts to respond to those student demands.

That is not to deny that new members of the faculty bring much new added energy, and new fields of expertise to campus. Many departments have been requesting new faculty members, and many of those would be asked to teach courses that are not now being taught on campus. It is only to say that new faculty hires are not – by far – the only source of curricular innovation on campus.

In short, I want simply to say that curriculum reform and change is a complex process; but it is not necessarily a closed one, nor a secret one. Impulses for change can – and do – come from a variety of directions and perspectives. And I believe that the College – which, in this case, means, necessarily, “the faculty” – wants very much to respond to them. I understand that the SGA Curriculum Committee will be meeting soon with the Committee on Academic Policy. That will be an important step. But attention to these issues need not await, nor be understood to depend on, hiring new members of the faculty.

-Martha Ackelsberg,

Professor of Government and of the Study of Women and Gender