Response
to the Communications of Chancellor Matthew Goldstein on General
Education Reforms to the American Association of University
Professors
Philip
A. Pecorino, Ph.D.
Queensborough Community College, CUNY
AS a professional educator I hold the academic
values of knowledge and truth and I believe that it is part of my
professional responsibilities as a member of the faculty of the City
University of New York that I must respond to claims made about CUNY
faculty and CUNY that are not truthful and to correct any
misimpressions that may have been created in the public mind by any
such claims. Thus it is that I respond to communications of the
University Chancellor Matthew Goldstein concerning the series of
actions of the Board of Trustees and the Chancellery reforming
General Education that are commonly referred to under the title of
the “Pathways Initiative”. Those communications contain numerous
misstatements and questionable claims and negative portrayals of
faculty that need to have a response on the record. There are
errors of fact and of reasoning as well as misdirection and
gratuitous insults to faculty in the communications that will herein
receive a counter set of claims supported with evidence.
The most recent communication
June 21, 2013 of the CUNY Chancellor to the AUUP
(http://www1.cuny.edu/portal_ur/newswire/2013/pathways2/Kreiser.pdf)
or here in response to an email by AAUP Senior Program Officer/Associate
Secretary Robert Kreiser and to the
“Resolution in Support of Faculty Control of Curriculum at the City
University of New York” passed at the AAUP Annual Meeting on
June 15, 2013, will serve as the starting point of this
communication. Responses will be offered to passages in the order
in which they appear in that letter.
(1)
“Are you aware, for example that more than 2,000 courses, all
conceived of and developed entirely by faculty, have been approved
for inclusion in CUNY’s General Education Program?”
This is accurate for the most part but conceals
the conditions under which these courses were proposed, the nature
of the faculty who worked on them, the lack of support for the new
Common Core and the alteration of courses for it by faculty
governance bodies and academic discipline councils. Most of the
undergraduate faculty who participated will report that they did so
only because they thought they had no other choice or were threatened in
some way. Most would report that they are opposed to Pathways.
Some of those on the most influential of the committees have
recanted their positions and many have signed various statements
opposing Pathways.
(2)
“Contrary to the assertion in the resolution, the AAUP’s
Statement on Governance does not embody standards widely
upheld in higher education, as I pointed out to you in my letter
dated March 21, 2013. Rather the Statement on Governance only
adopted by the AAUP, a professional association and labor union
organized by and for the benefit of faculty.”
The fact that the statement is adopted by the
AAUP does not count against or preclude that it represents standards
widely upheld in higher education. The facts will support the claim
of the AAUP in that faculty and administrators pay heed to the
statement and to any act of censure by the AAUP. There is no
evidence to support the claim that the statement does not embody the
purported standards.
Further , AAUP exists for the benefit of
society and not simply faculty. Academic Freedom for faculty and
institutions is widely recognized by the courts and legislatures as
a social good.
(3)
“ For more than four decades, our students have been
confronted with significant obstacles in transferring credits from
one campus to another. This has resulted in their having had to
spend additional time and money retaking courses because credits
earned at one CUNY College were not accepted as satisfying the
requirements for general education and majors at the CUNY college to
which they had transferred.”
This statement is misleading as it presents the
case of excess credits as have a singular source. While this is a
true statement, it is quite misleading. The problem with transfer
was identified by CUNY with the accumulation of credits in excess of
those needed for a baccalaureate degree. In October of 2010,
Associate University Provost, Julia Wrigley issued a report entitled
“Improving
Student Transfer at CUNY.”
The data used by CUNY to support the narrative of a problem
of great magnitude and one that was not being addressed by faculty
was data that incorporated an entire host of problems and factors
that led to accumulations of credits above the minimum required for
the degree. The excess credits result from a variety of sources and
not all are amendable to remediation nor should some of them be
removed as they result from the volitional acts of students with
good reasons for taking additional classes.
Upon careful analysis the extent of the problem
of excessive credits was seen as minimal when considering the
average number of credits amassed by graduating students. In
addition to the cause the CUNY narrative used to present a moving
case for the need for action by the Board of Trustees without formal
faculty involvement via CUNY governance structures, namely the
refusal to accept credits upon transfer, credits above the minimum
are accumulated in numerous ways including:
- Change of major
- Double major
- Late selection of a major
- Preparation for graduate education and the
GRE’s
- Personal Interests
https://sites.google.com/site/universityfacultysenatecuny/UFS-blog/pleasesendcommentstocunyufsgmailcom
is this passage:
If you subtract the
mean of excess credits not related to transfer from the six CUNY
related transfer categories and weight each of the six by the number
of graduates in each category in the chart, the number of excess
credits attributable to transfer is 2.66 credits! All the
controversy, all the threats, all the law suits, all the negative
impact on faculty morale and governance, all “The Improving Student
Transfer at CUNY” is about less than one course! CUNY is
eviscerating the core curriculum of 17 community and senior colleges
in the name of improving student transfer at CUNY when we are
talking about less than one course.
In must be noted and emphasized that the
Pathways initiatives and its reform of General Education throughout
CUNY does not address or remedy the accumulation of credits over the
minimum that result from the most common causes for such. The
Chancellery has no plan at this time to assess the effectiveness of
Pathways by using the sort of data (involving excess credits) used
in the initial narrative to promote support for Pathways.
(4)
“Until recently, faculty governance bodies did not even
acknowledge the problem, much less propose any solutions.”
This is not an accurate claim. The faculty of
CUNY had addressed the problem of transfer and had issued statements
adopted by the University Faculty Senate on several occasions. There were suggestions for
how to handle problems with transfer and the CUNY BOT took action in
accordance with recommendations on several occasions setting our
policies to govern transfer of credits.
There is then a legitimate problem with
transfer in that there is still the refusal of a receiving college
in CUNY to accept credits from the sending college despite CUNY BOT
policies. These situations are well known and have been addressed by
the CUNY BOT several times and several policies have been adopted to
resolve the difficulties in 1967, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1985, 1993 and
1999. (The listing of these resolutions was formerly on the CUNY
Pathways site at: (http://www.cuny.edu/academics/initiatives/degreepathways/archive/CUNYTransferPolicies.pdf
) but has now been taken down by the CUNY. Nonetheless the
original document that accumulated all the policies is located
here
and in the original minutes of meetings where the resolutions became
CUNY policy are still on the CUNY site.)
In
1973:
All City
University Community College Associate in Arts and Associate in
Science degree recipients shall be accepted as matriculated students
at a senior college of City University, and that these students be
given priority for transfer over non-University students seeking
transfer and that upon such transfer they be granted a minimum of 64
credits toward a baccalaureate degree and be required to complete
only the difference in credits between 64 and the total credits
required in the baccalaureate program in which the student enrolls.
In 1985:
All liberal
arts courses taken in one City University of New York college are to
be considered transferable with full credit to each college of the
University. Full credit is to be granted for these courses in all
departments and programs, and they are to be recognized for the
fulfillment of degree requirements. (BTM,1985,06-24,005,_D)
Based on a
fair and reasonable evaluation of a student's transcript at least
nine credits are to be granted in the student's major unless the
senior college determines that it wishes to grant additional credit
in the major. It is understood that the relationship of course
sequence and credit within the major will vary from college to
college and major to major and that the allocation of credits will
vary slightly. (BTM,1985,06-24,005,_D)
All science
courses taken in one University college are to be considered
transferable, with full credit, to each college of the University;
full credit is to be granted for these courses in all departments
and programs, and they are to be recognized for the fulfillment of
degree requirements. (BTM,1985,06-24,005,_D)
Based on a
fair and reasonable evaluation of a student's transcript at
least nine credits in laboratory science are to be granted in the
student's major unless the senior college determines that it wishes
to grant additional credit in the major. It is understood that the
relationship of course sequence and credit within the major will
vary from college to college and major to major and that the
allocation of credits will vary slightly. (BTM,1985,06-24,005,_D)
In 1999 the CUNY BOT adopted resolutions including this:
1.29 Transfers
The
Chancellor, in consultation with the Council of Presidents and the
faculty, including the Discipline Councils, shall establish a
process that will entail a review of transfer program distribution
requirements, ensure full implementation of all transfer policies
including those related to student admission and testing, and ensure
that the policies are properly interpreted and broadly disseminated
to students, faculty and administrators. (BTM,1999,11-22,005,_C)
Unfortunately, enforcement
of these policies of the BOT by the University’s Chancellery has not
been in evidence over several decades. This has led to far too many
incidents of students being made to enroll in more courses than
would have otherwise been needed to fulfill graduation requirements.
In light of clear cases of injustice and violations of BOT policies
and instead of enforcement of previous policies, the Chancellery
offered to the BOT yet another approach to whatever problems may
exist with transfer that mandated without academic justification the
reformulation of General Education throughout the entire university.
It is painfully ironic that now the Chancellery has indicated that
it will establish an appeals process for any student who has
difficulty in having credits accepted upon transfer. This is what
was in order following the 1999 Board of Trustees policy on
transfer. Had the Chancellery done such following the Board of
Trustees policy in 1999 there would most likely have been no pretext
using transfer problems for action on the Pathways reform of general
education.
(5)
“Even now three years into the initiation of discussions on
reforming CUNY’s transfer policies, and after the PSC and the UFS
announced in the spring of 2012 that they would put forward a plan
in September 2012, no faculty proposal has been offered.
There were alternative plans put forward. This
was so before and after Fall 2012. There were both formal and
informal proposals and all were rejected summarily by the
Chancellery. There were further suggestions in the Fall 2012 conference reports and
in several messages to
chancellery from the UFS and communications to the chancellery by
faculty governance leaders and individual faculty.
(6)
Clearly, action was required by the Board of Trustees and the
chancellery, which possess a university wide perspective and are not
primarily answerable to a particular college or department, to break
this logjam and put the legitimate interests of the students first.”
It is not at all that clear that the actions
of the Chancellery in proposing and imposing the Pathways actions
upon the university were required. This claim that Pathways reforms
“were required” is offered by the Chancellery as the basis for
invoking a provision of the AAUP Statement on Governance that states
“ ’in exceptional circumstances and for reasons communicated to the
faculty’, a board of trustees may exercise its power of review and
decision making regarding academic matters.”
There was no logjam that resulted from either
the action or inaction of the faculty as the CUNY narrative would
have the public believe. There was a failure of the Chancellery to
carry out the CUNY BOT policy of 1999 to have enforced the previous
policy resolutions aimed at diminishing problems with transfer.
The legitimate interest of students would have
been better served by enforcement of existing policies and through a
richer Liberal Arts and Science education than the Pathways reforms
mandate.
(7)
The resolution goes on to describe Pathways as a ‘top-down
overhaul of CUNY’s general-education framework that will replace all
existing general-education-curricula and force colleges to reduce
the number and quality of courses.’ That characterization is wrong
in every respect.”
To the contrary and despite protestations of
the Chancellery, each element in that claim is easily demonstrable.
(8)
“First, the Board of Trustees established certain general
parameters concerning only the number of credits; all aspects of the
actual Pathways curriculum were formulated by faculty-dominated
committees, whose recommendations were adopted without change by
me.”
In CUNY the BOT is at the top in legal
authority and it was the BOT that adopted the resolutions as framed
by the Chancellery. No faculty were party to the formulations of
the resolutions. No faculty groups or governance bodies supported
the proposals.
The recommendations of the chancellery
committee were based on an approach to general-education reform
given to it by the Chancellery. There were also many actions of the
Chancellery in the form of guidelines and directives for the
implementation of the BOT resolutions that went beyond what was
authorized either by the BOT or in the recommendations of the
Chancellery appointed task force delivered on December 1, 2011.
(9)
“Second, within the structure established by the Board of
Trustees and objectives established by the faculty-dominated
committees, the colleges were free to retain as much of their
general-education curricula as they chose.
This claim is extremely difficult to fathom.
It begins with the stipulation of “within the structure established”
which is quite limiting of the content and size of general education
programs and then the claim goes on to challenge credulity with the
indication that colleges could retain as much as they chose.
Colleges were not at all free to retain as much of their curricula
as they chose. At the community colleges where the general
education cores of programs exceeded 30 credits they could not
retain as much as they wanted as they were limited to 30 credits.
Even where there were cores totaling more than 30 credits there were
now new structures that paid no heed to disciplines and colleges
were strictly prohibited from retaining requirements for the study
of specific disciplines and foreign languages or even the study of
science with laboratory components. There are narrow limits imposed
so that colleges needed to eliminate elements of their previous
general education programs. This is true at the baccalaureate
programs as well.
(10) In fact the
vast majority of courses submitted and approved were existing
courses that were previously part of each college’s
general-education program.
This is true but misleading. While the courses
submitted were as described they for the most part were no longer to
be required but became merely offerings amongst which there would be
choices. Colleges could offer foreign language courses but where
they were previously fulfilling a language requirement now they
could be bypassed by students who can choose any one of a number of
non-language courses to fulfill the category of the new Common Core
into which foreign language courses might be placed. Likewise, is
is a similar case with the Social Sciences.
(11)Third. Although the number of required general education
credits was reduced to bring the University in line with the
practice of nearly all other colleges and universities, the total
number of credits that students must take to earn their degrees
remains the same.”
It is not at all clear that the limiting of
General Education to 30 credits is in line with the practice of
nearly all other colleges and universities. Further, even if it was
there would b the problem of false comparisons as the size of the
general education programs should be matched to the need on the part
of the student body for it. In New York City with so many students
so poorly prepared for college level work and with little or no
general education completed in high school there is a need for more
and not less general education in the Liberal Arts and Sciences.
Those who attend the finest high schools and receive a preparation
for college tend to go on into private colleges and universities and
their need of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Ivy League colleges is
far less than New York City children entering its public university.
(12)Fourth, all of the Pathways courses have been approved by
several levels of faculty committees at both the undergraduate
colleges and at a university wide level.’
Not all Pathways courses have been approved by
the standard governance process. Approvals of courses by committees
composed of faculty appointed to them by the Chancellery and under
the general atmosphere of threat and intimidation and with financial
reward for compliance are being claimed as being the equivalent of
the traditional faculty development and review process for academic
matters. It is not and cannot be. Independent and unrestricted
exercise of academic freedom by faculty needs to be in place for the
proper exercise of academic judgments.
(13)Neither the number nor the quality of these courses offered
has been reduced.”
The number of courses in general education in
the new common core has been reduced. The contact instructional
time with instructors in the classroom has been reduced for many of
the courses. This in turn reduces the quality of instruction for
many students. Given the under preparation for college most
students in CUNY need more and not less time in the classroom with
their instructors. The quality of science and mathematics course has
been reduced with mathematical literacy or numeracy being
substituted for college level mathematics including algebra and
science courses being offered and satisfying the new common core
requirement without a laboratory element to the course being
required.
(14)The assertions of the PSC and the UFS to the contrary are not
supported by any evidence and are suspect in view of their
opposition to numerous CUNY initiatives over the past 14 years to
improve academic standards.”
The claim that the PSC and UFS have opposed
initiatives to improve academic standards is at best problematic
without reference or evidence to support it. The implicit claim
that proposals by administrators to raise academic standards were or
are guaranteed or certified as raising standards is not the sort of
claim academics make without supporting evidence. The nature of the
claim is foreign to the academy.
In terms of improving academic standards the
faculty of the University have been producing such measures steadily
and have entered into consultation with both college and university
administrators concerning proposals to raise or assess standards
that have not originated within the academic community itself.
Often faculty have exercised their research skills and academic
judgments and found proposals that are characterized as intended to
raise academic standards wanting in supporting evidence or not
suited to the student bodies of the CUNY colleges. If the “numerous
CUNY initiatives” would or could be identified then explanations,
reasons and evidence might be supplied as to whatever is being
characterized as “opposition”.
(15)The board is not required to await recommendations by the
faculty to address a serious and longstanding problem, especially
where, as here, the faculty has demonstrated that it is unwilling to
formulate a transfer policy or proposal of its own.”
It is not true that the faculty of CUNY were
unwilling to formulate a transfer policy or proposal of its own. On
several occasions the faculty have done so and even at the early
stages of the Pathways project faculty attempted to offer
alternatives only to be rejected and even mocked.
The CUNY Board of trustees has indeed addressed
the transfer problem several times over from 1967 to 1999 (see
above) and it has been the Chancellery and not the faculty who have
failed to act to implement and enforce the policies of the Board of
Trustees.
(16)The elected governance bodies at CUNY had numerous
opportunities to participate in both the formulation and the
implementation of Pathways.
The truth or accuracy of this claim rests on
the meaning of “participate”. The Chancellery presented no
opportunities for any meaningful consultations with elected
governance bodies. From the outset the Chancellery presented and
defended that the role of elected bodies was confined to acceptance
and compliance of Board policies and the guidelines and directives
of the Chancellery.
(17)Several of them, including the UFS, chose to boycott the
process (by repeatedly refusing to nominate persons to serve on
committees when asked to do so) and/or to defy the policy
established by the Board of Trustees (by refusing to submit courses
approved by departments and curriculum committees,) thereby
voluntarily removing themselves from the consultative process.
The chancellery presumes to characterize the
actions of the UFS and faculty and faculty bodies of CUNY as
constituting a self removal from the process. In fact the actions
taken by numerous faculty bodies in their refusal to comply or
accept were demonstrations of their academic judgments for which
they have Academic Freedom.
The Chancellor proffers a false dilemma, namely
faculty either accept and comply with the Board policies and
directives of the Chancellery or they remove themselves from the
process. Numerous times the phrase “take themselves out of the
game” was employed by the Chancellor and other administrators to
characterize the second option. The insistence that faculty approve
of courses and that governance bodies approve of Pathways compliant
courses and programs itself defies the principle of Academic Freedom
to express academic judgments on academic matters
Being denied has been the professional status
of faculty as professional educators who must fulfill their
fiduciary responsibilities to their students in making academic
judgments in the best interests of their students. Despite threats
and other forms of coercion all manner of faculty groups did
repeatedly act to fulfill their professional responsibilities to
their students, colleagues, institution and discipline and exercised
their best academic judgments. In many cases that would take the
form of not approving of courses or programs and in not accepting
positions on committees that were charged with fulfilling terms of
the Pathways project with which they had sharp academic judgments
indicating that the charges to the committees were against the best
interests of the students of the University.
The characterization that there was a
consultative process is not at all accurate as, in almost every
instance of any import, faculty were not given opportunity to alter
in any manner that with which the Chancellery had already decided
faculty must accept. The apparent purpose of nearly all meetings
of the Chancellery with faculty was to inform and secure compliance
with what the Chancellery wanted.
(18)Moreover, since you first wrote to me 18 months ago, the AAUP
has not referred this matter to its Committee A”
The delay on the part of the AAUP may be due to
the specific request made by CUNY Chancellor in a letter dated March
21, 2012 not to continue its inquiries while there was a legal
matter before the courts in New York State.
“Finally, if the
AAUP decides to pursue this matter further, I request that it defer
any investigation. The UFS and Professional Staff Congress (the
faculty union at CUNY) have filed a lawsuit challenging the Pathways
initiative. I do not think it is fair or appropriate for the
university to have to respond to an AAUP investigation at the same
time it is defending a lawsuit pertaining to the same matter.”-M.Goldstein,
3-21-12
To cite the observance of the request as
evidence of any lack of suspicion of violations of academic freedom
is disingenuous at best.
(19)“The resolution then falsely claims that ‘Pathways reduces
academic quality and rigor at CUNY by introducing basic science
courses without lab sessions, decreasing requirements for foreign
languages, and replacing academic disciplines with vaguely defined
fields.”
The claim is made but the basis for the claim
being declared as being false is not at all self evident as the
Chancellor’s rhetoric would make it appear. Indeed, more evident
would be the need to demonstrate that the quality and rigor could be
maintained in light of the changes being made which are acknowledged
by the Chancellery.
(20) “I appreciate that this change makes some faculty in some
departments anxious because students will not be required to take
their courses. However, that is not the same thing as reducing
academic quality and rigor.”
Nowhere do the faculty of CUNY claim nor does
any of its groups claim that the reduction in academic quality and
rigor would result from students no longer being required to take
certain courses. It is most misleading and insulting to faculty to
portray otherwise. The reduction of academic quality and rigor is
related to the number and type of courses that will fulfill the
general education requirements and the contact instructional time
being reduced and the level of mathematics being reduced and science
instruction without the laboratory component.
(21) The resolution goes on to state that "the CUNY
administration has responded to legitimate faculty objections to
Pathways with intimidations, threats, and coercion." I lake that to
be a reference to a single, unfortunate communication from the
interim provost of Queensborough Community College to the
chairperson of the English Department, which was the subject of our
exchange of letters in late September 2012. As I pointed out to you
then, the interim provost later apologized for that communication,
which was one of dozens concerning Pathways at only one of our 19
undergraduate colleges.”
The reference to ‘intimidations, threats and coercion” in
the AAUP action makes reference to more than a single instance
wherein a provost placed the threats into written form. There are
many faculty and department chairpersons throughout the university
who will testify to threats made should they not comply with the
orders of the chancellery and even communications form the
Chancellor indicating that faculty had no choice but to comply and
vote yes on any and all proposals for implementing and complying
with Pathways submitted for their academic judgment. Coercion has
been used in direct and indirect manner. The presidents and
provosts have been repeatedly reminded that they are officers of the
University and must carry out the policies of the board. As they
serve at the pleasure of their superiors the message is clear and it
is even stated in written form that such officers of the university
can be removed for failure to respect ad carry out Board policies
and the efforts of the Chancellery. It is then understandable when
they display the consequent temperament of nervous anxiety when they
repeatedly communicate the urgency and inevitability of the Pathways
reforms to department chairpersons and faculty. In some notable
cases, one at Queensborough Community College, the threat of loss of
courses and lines and positions became quite direct and visible. At
the same time many such threats were without substance as laws and
regulations and accreditation standards would prevent some of the
most disturbing of the threats from being carried out. Nonetheless
in the climate of fear that came over many areas of the university
that emotion blocked reason and faculty lost sight of their
professional responsibilities and placed their own security before
the interests of students in their own enunciation of their best
academic judgments. This was as astonishing as deplorable and
disappointing.
Presidents, provosts and other administrators
were warned about obeying the BOT. These admonitions fulfilled the
directive of CUNY BOT Chairman Benno Schmidt in
The Mayor's
Advisory Task Force on the City University of New York issued its
report,
The City University of New York: An Institution Adrift,
to
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani on June 7, 1999
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/cuny/pdf/adrift.pdf
Once
constructive working relationships are in place, the campus
presidents and the faculty must no longer be permitted to undermine
— or even ignore — legitimate university-wide policies and
initiatives. Presidents and faculty who fail to vigorously enforce
university policies — such as those governing student transfers and
program duplication — should be subject to discipline, up to and
including dismissal.
The pressure placed upon administrators immediately moved to
pressure upon academic department chairpersons and faculty. The
most
dramatic instance at Queensborough Community College when its
provost placed threats into written form.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/our-campaigns/pathways-qcc
On Wednesday, September 12th [2012, the English Department at
Queensborough Community College voted overwhelmingly to reject
proposed curriculum changes for Pathways, namely a reduction of
hours for English composition courses from four to three. The
faculty’s decision was guided by a deep commitment to sustaining a
quality education for students.
The administration's response, an email to the department the next
day by Vice President Karen Steele, announced sweeping reprisals.
The email threatened eliminating all composition courses, cancelling
all English Department searches, calling all full-time faculty
reappointments in fall 2013 into question, and announcing that all
adjunct faculty will be sent non-reappointment letters in fall 2013.
Pressure upon academic department chairpersons and faculty has also
been a factor in the removal or rejection of chairpersons of
academic departments at Brooklyn College and elsewhere where there
was resistance or non-cooperation or refusal to comply with Pathways
implementation.
(22)”
The resolution cites a recent poll conducted by the PSC
regarding Pathways. As a mathematical
statistician, I know something about polling. That poll could not
meet even the most minimal professional standards. The poll
originally identified the responders' names, thereby creating a risk
of retaliation. The ballot language contained extensive argument in
favor of a no confidence vote white omitting anything from an
opposing point of view. Moreover, the language was so broad as to
encourage a vote of no confidence no matter what the basis for or
how small the objection to Pathways. I am advised that at least one
paid PSC organizer spent countless hours contacting faculty and
urging them to vote against Pathways. Even so, a bare majority of
the full-time faculty voted against Pathways, thereby demonstrating
what we at CUNY already knew—that the faculty is divided on the
issue. That fact, of course, may serve to explain why the problem of
transfer credits has been neglected for so long. By contrast, the
students have been consistently and overwhelmingly in favor of
Pathways, as indicated by, among other things, the enclosed letter
from the chairperson of the University Student Senate.”
The claim that “ Even so, a bare majority
of the full time faculty voted against Pathways, thereby
demonstrating what we already knew-that the faculty is divided on
the issue.” is a gross distortion of what is the case. More
than 60 percent of eligible voters (4,322) participated in the no
confidence referendum conducted by the AAA, and
92 percent (3,996) of those voted no confidence.
http://www.psc-cuny.org/pathways These numbers
indicate what is known on each campus, that the overwhelming
majority of the faculty are opposed to Pathways.
The fact that the
faculty are divided on this issue is indeed true and unanimity of
thought in a faculty is not something to be regarded in a positive
manner. The Chancellery takes an attribute of nearly every faculty
of every college as a pretext for claiming the support of faculty
for Pathways. To present the situation as one in which some faculty
support Pathways and some do not support Pathways is a gross
distortion when there is clear evidence of faculty opposition in
overwhelmingly large numbers and no evidence, in any significant
number, of support for Pathways from actual, current CUNY full time
faculty who teach undergraduates.
(23) CUNY should
never go back to the arbitrary, dysfunctional system that previously
existed.”
To the degree that CUNY had an “arbitrary,
dysfunctional system” that exists with regard to transfer it should
be corrected. The path to such a correction had already been set
out by the CUNY BOT and that BOT charged the Chancellery to see that
its actions were enforced. “The
Chancellor, in consultation with the Council of Presidents and the
faculty, including the Discipline Councils, shall establish a
process that will entail a review of transfer program distribution
requirements, ensure full implementation of all transfer
policies”
CUNY BOT 1999, emphasis added.
The Pathways
actions of the Chancellery and BOT will not significantly reduce the
number of excess credits nor will the reform of general education
best serve the students of the University. They will not even remove
all problems with transfer. Instead, they have created a singular
approach to Liberal Arts and Sciences that is arbitrary,
dysfunctional system of preparation of students for lifelong
learning and advancement throughout their careers.