Curriculum changes proposed

After years of discussion and critique, the CSB+SJU Joint Faculty Assembly (JFA) will conclude a vote this week on a sweeping proposal that would significantly reshape the Integrations Curriculum (IC).

The changes, developed by a faculty-led Ad Hoc Review Committee over the past academic year, are designed to simplify the curriculum without compromising the schools’ liberal arts mission or their commitment to equity and inclusion. Electronic voting opened May 1 and will close on May 8. If approved, the revised curriculum would take effect in fall 2027 and apply to all incoming cohorts after that date — meaning current students will not be affected.

The Ad Hoc Committee was composed of elected faculty members from across disciplines: Carol Brash (art), Claire Haeg (political science), Brian Larkin (history), Rachelle Larsen (nursing) and Michael Rosenbaum (sociology), alongside ex officio institutional representatives. Co- chaired by Matt Harkins (English) and Sunil Chetty (mathematics), the committee presented its comprehensive proposal to faculty on April 15. The report outlines a major restructuring that would remove the embedded Theme requirements. Under the new plan, students would be required to complete two humanities and two social science courses from different departments, broadening their exposure while increasing curricular flexibility.

Another key component of the proposal is a revision of the curriculum’s learning goals. The committee recommends eliminating the Metacognition and Collaboration requirements, two outcomes that faculty members have long found difficult to assess with consistency. The “Cultural and Social Difference” designation would be simplified to encourage more direct engagement with issues of race, gender and ethnicity through an intersectional lens. Additional dimensions, such as class and ability, may also be included to deepen the analysis. The curriculum’s religious components would be reframed as well. “Theological Explorations” and “Theological Integrations” would be renamed “Religious Engagement” and “Theological Reasoning,” respectively. The report writes that this change would reflect a broader understanding of spiritual learning while also eliminating the Benedictine Raven designation.

Similarly, the “Global Engagement” goal would be changed to “Global Understanding,” aiming to foster critical engagement with international systems and global perspectives.

Some of the proposed changes focus on technical skill assessment. The shift from a “growth model” (focused on tracking individual progress) to a “proficiency model” (centered on demonstrated skill mastery) may help standardize evaluation and simplify reporting for professors. The full committee report is accessible through the JFA’s CSB+SJU SharePoint site.

According to Christi Siver, vice chair of the JFA and professor of political science, the proposed reforms center around four main goals: replacing the theme- based structure with divisional distribution requirements, refining and consolidating learning goals, improving assessment practices and enhancing clarity across departments and advising structures. She said that the committee did not seek to reduce the size of the curriculum at this time.

“The current proposal reduces the complexity, but not the size,” Siver said. “Reducing size was considered, but there wasn’t a consensus on how to do it.”

Gregory Schroeder, professor of history at CSB+SJU, said he is completely behind the proposed changes. He noted that the Ad Hoc Committee’s proposal offers a comprehensive, coherent revision, which he said is far preferable to continuing with piecemeal adjustments.

“I wholeheartedly support the proposal to revise the Integrations Curriculum and voted yes immediately upon receipt of my electronic ballot,” Schroeder said. “It’s actually better than the IC the faculty originally approved.”

Although Schroeder clarified that he was not speaking for the entire history department, he noted they had already revised their curriculum to align with the IC and believed students would welcome the proposed changes.

“The IC is the third general education curriculum in which I’ve taught at CSB+SJU. From my experience, while the general ed curriculum is important, more important are the departments and disciplines that constitute the backbone of the liberal arts,” Schroeder said. “From that perspective as well, the proposal to revise the IC is welcomed.”

Jason Schlude, professor of Classics and History, echoed this sentiment. He emphasized that the nature of the general curriculum is one of the most significant decisions a faculty can make.

“The Ad Hoc Committee elected by the faculty to review the IC appreciated the importance of this work. Representing all academic divisions, this committee studied the IC across a two-year period, engaged in conversations with departments and reviewed student experience data. Their recommendations are judicious,” Schlude said.

In Schlude’s view, the revised IC preserves disciplinary breadth — requiring engagement with the social sciences, humanities, natural sciences, mathematics, fine arts and global languages — while streamlining theological study to reflect both Catholic tradition and broader religious inquiry. He said he believes the proposal offers a liberal arts framework suited to a fast- evolving, interconnected world.

Not all faculty, however, share these opinions. Some faculty have said that the data informing the proposal relies heavily on student surveys and enrollment figures, rather than current assessment data or samples of student work that demonstrate the effectiveness of the existing curriculum. Emily Paup, chair of the Gender Studies department and professor of Strategic Communication Studies, also served as chair of the General Education Curriculum Committee for three years during the implementation of the IC. She raised several concerns about the proposed overhaul, chief among them the risk of diluting the curriculum’s focus on race, gender and ethnicity. While she said the broader framing may seem more inclusive, she warned that losing standalone designations for race and gender could result in a loss of depth.

“Weakening the curricular focus on race and gender undermines our institution’s stated commitment to antiracism and inclusion,” Paup said, specifically critiquing changes to the Cultural and Social Difference requirement.

Paup also expressed concerns over the lack of concrete implementation details.

“While complete consensus may be unattainable, I believe we can and should strive for a more inclusive process. The proposal is broad and underdeveloped, lacking finalized language, four-year plans and impact analyses. That makes it difficult to predict consequences for departments or students,” Paup said.

Paup believes more time and faculty engagement are necessary before endorsing major curriculum changes. Although the proposal eliminates some burdensome elements, such as the Thematic and Benedictine Raven requirements, which were often embedded in other classes, new requirements, such as the additional humanities and social science courses, could inadvertently increase the number of courses students must take.

“The proposal assumes that certain efficiencies will result from clearer naming conventions or double-counting designations,” Paup said. “But those assumptions haven’t been tested yet.”

Frustration with the IC is not new. Since its implementation in 2020, faculty and advisors have long described the curriculum as administratively strenuous, with students expressing difficulty understanding how its many designations connect to their academic goals.

Chemistry professor Edward McIntee reflected these frustrations and said that the size of the curriculum is still an ongoing problem.

“My biggest objection to the proposed changes is that they do not address the overall size [number of classes and credits] of the general education curriculum. Many pre- health and science majors have difficulty fitting in all their major and pre-health requirements along with general education,” McIntee said.

McIntee also noted that while education and nursing students receive exemptions from the IC, the proposed revisions do not help with increasing flexibility for all majors.

“I would rather see a general education curriculum small enough to allow students to explore areas of interest, change majors, double major or pick up a minor without having their entire path planned before they arrive,” McIntee said. “College should be a time where students have the freedom to explore and figure out what they are passionate about.”

The implications of the proposal will vary across departments. While areas like history and English may benefit from the new humanities requirement, interdisciplinary fields like Gender Studies could face logistical hurdles. For example, assigning a single course designation may restrict staffing options, scheduling and the variety of students drawn to a course.

The true impact of the proposed changes on student learning and faculty work remains uncertain. The proposal is still in draft form and will likely undergo further revision based on ongoing feedback.

CSB junior Caroline Wicks, a double major in Global Business and Strategic Communication Studies, sees the revisions as a “trial-and- error steppingstone” and thinks the proposal, if passed, could spark ongoing improvements.

For Wicks, the curriculum’s size is its greatest challenge. While she acknowledges that this particular proposal focuses on complexity and does not intend to reduce the size, she hopes that future reforms will address that concern.

“Thanks to the Integrations Curriculum, I’ve had a really broad variety of experiences throughout college,” Wicks said. “But managing two majors and the IC while graduating on time is difficult — it’s essentially another major within itself.”

The motion is already approved by the Joint Faculty Senate, which supports the committee’s recommendations with one key amendment: the two required humanities and social science courses must come from different departments to ensure interdisciplinary breadth.

If approved, the revised curriculum will undergo further development and logistical planning over the next two years. Some departments may see adjustments in course designation processes, but no department is expected to lose curricular standing.

Siver urged faculty and committee members to maintain open dialogue during this final stage.

“The most important thing to me is that all the faculty get the opportunity to vote on the proposed revisions,” Siver said.

The outcome of the vote will be sent to faculty via email in the coming weeks following the conclusion of the vote, and a copy of that email will be published in the JFA SharePoint.