William H. Chafe, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Printable Acrobat file (.pdf) of this Letter November 18, 1998 Dear Colleagues, When I became Dean, I pledged that I would be responsive to and speak for the faculty that I have been part of for 27 years. I also promised to be straightforward in communicating with you about the issues facing us, and to provide, to the best of my ability, strong leadership during this critical period of DukeÕs history. It is in that context that I write you today to express, personally, why I believe that the proposed curriculum change is necessary if we are to measure up to our responsibilities as a leading American university. A number of years ago, I became concerned that we were not preparing our students as well as we should for the world they were entering. In part, this reflected my own experience in the History Department. We had embarked upon curriculum change, expanded the requirements for the major, and eliminated AP course credit for introductory courses. But it seemed we were still not challenging our students enough, stretching them -- and ourselves -- to realize the full value of a liberal arts education, particularly in the areas of research, writing, and exposure to different perspectives on knowledge. After I moved to Allen Building, my concerns were reinforced by disturbing data on what our students were and were not taking. Although we had six areas of knowledge in the curriculum, nearly half of our students were taking no courses at all in one area of the six. This pattern particularly affected foreign languages, the natural sciences, and quantitative reasoning. An alarmingly large percentage of our students were graduating without scientific literacy or the ability to understand cultures and languages other than their own. It was for this reason that last year I asked a faculty committee, chaired by Peter Lange and including distinguished faculty from each division, to look hard at our current curriculum. I believe that the proposal they have presented -- now revised considerably after your input through faculty forums and other meetings -- represents a positive framework within which to educate our graduates to function effectively in the global and technical environment of the 21st century. At its heart are changes designed to help all Duke graduates understand the language and methods of science; to assist them in grasping how different cultures, language systems, and values shape (and have shaped) our world civilizations; and to help them master the fundamental skills of critical thinking, interpretive inquiry, and analytical assessment. By requiring such fundamentals, this proposal goes a long way toward assuring that every Duke graduate will be prepared to succeed in the highly complex world of today and tomorrow. At the same time, by   providing choices within the overall structure, the proposal offers students the flexibility to create a course structure which satisfies their individual goals. There are a number of questions that have been raised about the committeeÕs proposal that I would like to address briefly. First is the concern that it is too complex, as reflected in the matrix of horizontal and vertical columns. In part, I think this is an issue of perspective and different departmental cultures. If the requirements are viewed in a more descriptive fashion, each student will be asked to take: A) three courses in four different areas of knowledge (the social sciences, natural sciences and mathematics, arts and literatures, and civilizations); B) two courses each, dealing with two forms of inquiry (quantitative, inductive and deductive reasoning, and interpretive and aesthetic approaches to understanding); C) two courses that are research intensive and three that are writing intensive; D) two courses each, reflecting different focuses of inquiry (cross-cultural inquiry, science, technology and society, and ethical inquiry); and E) one or more courses in foreign language and literature, depending upon demonstrated proficiency at matriculation. In sum, I think this set of requirements is no more complex than our current system. Second, let me address how we intend to finance the changes that have been proposed. There is approximately $1.5 million that has been set aside, explicitly, for funding undergraduate enhancements. This money comes from sources specified for this purpose, not from re-allocating existing resources. When the trustees implemented a new two-step tuition increase that started with this yearÕs freshman class, they mandated that $1 million of the new resources would go to support undergraduate enhancements, while $2 million would go to faculty development. Under the Bass challenge to develop new professorships that honor outstanding teachers and scholars, half of the budget relief created ($500 thousand) is specifically allocated to undergraduate enhancements, while half goes to faculty development. These two provisions have made it possible for us to envision 20 to 25 new tenure track faculty positions over the next five years, and adequate resources to help implement expansion of our foreign language instruction, a revised writing program, enhanced opportunities for undergraduate research, and curriculum development grants. These monies, I believe, will allow us successfully to support the new curriculum, and will not detract from our faculty development plans. Indeed, it is important to emphasize that these resources are not fungible; the curriculum implementation monies are mandated for that purpose only, as are the faculty development funds. Third, there is understandable concern that this is a dramatic change that cannot be put into effect quickly. I agree. That is why the changes will be sequenced over a five-year period. The first class to be affected will be the one entering 18 months from now, in the fall of 2000. Starting then, there will be four years to "ramp up" for the full implementation of the curriculum. I will appoint a committee to oversee this implementation process and I will ensure that adequate teaching resources are available to meet the goals of the new curriculum. Finally, some concern has been expressed that by creating an "ethical inquiry" focus we are seeking to impose a western or Judeo-Christian set of values on our students. T hat is not the case. The proposal encourages critical inquiry of competing values and ethical structures, with the goal of sharpening student appreciation of the ethical implications of all decision-making. I hope that everyone will fully engage discussion of this curriculum proposal and seek an outcome that will best serve our students and the entire university. As an historian of the United States, I am reminded of the debates at the constitutional convention in 1787. Different constituencies, representing different priorities, clearly wished to defend their own interests; but they also recognized the need to advance the health and vitality of the whole. I ask you to keep the good of all our future undergraduates in the forefront of your minds as you participate in the discussions of the Arts and Sciences Council on December 1 and December 10, and final consideration of the proposal on January 14. With best wishes, William H. Chafe   Copyright © 1998, Duke University