In June of 2004, faculty members criticized the Harvard College Curricular Review for its lack of a “guiding philosophy,” and administrators promised to redirect their efforts toward a clear mission.

One year later, the curricular review remains stalled, leaving the Faculty frustrated by an endeavor that has faltered for lack of time, guidance, and a unifying principle.

According to the schedule set forth by Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby last fall, tonight’s monthly meeting of the full Faculty would have included votes on some concrete proposals of the review.

Instead, after months of discussion by some of Harvard’s most notable faculty and administrators, the same criticisms continue to plague the review, which has fallen far behind Kirby’s schedule.

Five of the six review committees have yet to release their findings, and the General Education report—presented in draft form to the Faculty Council in March—has been widely criticized as unfocused.

“There’s no sense that we have before us a brave new proposal,” says Professor of the History of Science Everett I. Mendelsohn, who is also a member of the Faculty Council.

The General Education report is widely acknowledged to be the cornerstone of the review, and its delay spells a murky future for the entire endeavor.

The schedule for tonight’s meeting includes the first status updates in almost a year from the curricular review committees, along with presentations by a number of other committees.

But with the docket packed, and with faculty members increasingly frustrated by the review’s seeming stagnation, many fear there will be little time for much-needed discussion on what University President Lawrence H. Summers once called “the most comprehensive review of Harvard’s curriculum in a century.”

Just one month after voting for a lack of confidence in the University’s president, faculty members may use the forum tonight to protest what some say is an administrative failing to guide the review.

Professors have noted “disarray” in University Hall, at a time when administrative guidance is most needed to push an agenda for the already-delayed review forward in the future.

BIG SHOES TO FILL

Thirty years ago, when Harvard last undertook such a review, the Core was born, and the previous review, in the wake of the Second World War, produced the foundational document on the idea of general education.

But as early as last year, problems were beginning to emerge with the latest attempt to redefine the purpose of a Harvard education. High hopes for the review faltered in the face of continued uncertainty about the purpose of the review itself.

Upon the release last spring of the 67-page Summary of Principal Recommendations for the Review, professors attacked the report for want of focus and vision, in spite of the report’s many specific suggestions for curricular reform.