Throughout the fall semester and the early months of spring semester, the committees worked to debate the merits of previous recommendations and pounded out suggestions of their own.

In December, Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71, one of two remaining leaders of the review after Wolcowitz’s departure, cited “greater flexibility, more opportunities, and fewer requirements” as the principles guiding the work of the committees.

Committee members updated faculty and students on their discussions at a series of five forums for faculty and students, who hotly debated many aspects of the review.

The Dec. 10 Forum on General Education presented the Faculty with sketches of new Harvard College Courses—a collection of foundational, interdisciplinary courses to be taken in conjunction with distribution requirements—but met with significant uncertainty from the faculty.

In light of this dissatisfaction, faculty members said they needed more time for review and debate.

“There is a question of whether [the] function [of general education] has been sufficiently discussed,” Thomas said after the meeting. “There’s been very little dialogue.”

On Jan. 13, former Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan ’05 led a forum for students that focused largely on the need for better advising. The Jan. 18 Forum on Concentrations and Advising was held for the Faculty to discuss similar issues.

Next in line was the first forum of the spring semester, held on Feb. 2, where the Committee on Science and Technology Education presented plans for new introductory courses in the physical and life sciences. Some of the results of that committee’s labor­—the Life Sciences 1a and 1b class track—will begin next fall.

Professors were enthusiastic about the courses’ potential to improve the course sequences for science concentrators, but others expressed worry that the courses might not be accessible for non-concentrators.

“I think it’s a little unfortunate that these committees went off on a parallel track,” says Louis Menand, Bass professor of English and American literature and language. “[The courses] are not appropriate for many Harvard students.”

At a Feb. 17 Forum on Writing, Speaking, and Effective Teaching, James Engell ’73—the Chairman of the Committee to Review Expository Writing—said his committee was working to address the need for instruction in public speaking and for continued writing instruction across the concentrations.

A MISSED DEADLINE

As the planned forums drew to a close, public discussion of the review was sharply curtailed while discussion of Summers’ leadership and his controversial Jan. 14 remarks on women consumed Faculty meetings, culminating in the March 15 “lack of confidence” vote.

Anticipating the need for more time for discussion, Kirby told the Faculty Council—the 18-member FAS governing board—on Feb. 9 that more Faculty meetings would likely be added to the calendar this semester in order to allow a vote, but those meetings never materialized.

Kirby acknowledged at an April 12 Faculty meeting that serious discussion would have to continue into next year.