Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Core Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Twin Cities faculty reject proposed update to Liberal Education Curriculum; Board urged to seek timely solution
Summary
A faculty‑led proposal to modernize the Twin Cities campus liberal education curriculum failed a Faculty Senate vote; Provost Croson and President Cunningham told Regents they respect shared governance but are concerned about accreditation timing and asked for follow‑up to identify a path forward.
Provost Rachel Croson told the Mission Fulfillment Committee that a multi‑year, faculty‑led revision of the Twin Cities Liberal Education Curriculum did not pass the Twin Cities Faculty Senate and that a subsequent motion to consider any curricular change for the entering fall 2027 class also failed.
Croson summarized the committee’s multi‑year process — benchmarking, open forums and iterative revisions — and said the proposal had been presented multiple times and revised based on faculty feedback. She said parts of the proposal had broad student support; students and some campus groups endorsed the revision in docket materials and an opinion piece in the Minnesota Daily.
“Based on that vote, the current curriculum will remain in place,” Croson said, adding that she and President Cunningham wanted the Board to be aware of the development. Croson and others noted that the Higher Learning Commission’s accreditation criteria include expectations that an institution periodically review and improve its curriculum; she identified criterion 3.F as relevant to the Board’s awareness about timing and periodic program review.
President Joan Gabel Cunningham said she respected faculty governance but expressed concern that the institution had failed twice to adopt an update after a long review period. Cunningham said the Board and a new Provost should “dig into what the issue is exactly at the Faculty Senate” and find a timely, faculty‑led path to modernization while avoiding undue Board dictation of curricular content.
Regents in the meeting urged a prompt solution. One regent recommended setting a deadline (suggested six months) for a resolution developed in consultation with faculty and administration. Others stressed that curricular reform must remain grounded in faculty expertise but that the institution needs a clear process to avoid external intervention or accreditation risk.
The Committee had no immediate vote on the curriculum; administrators said they would return with recommendations about process and next steps.
