COLUMN: Higher Learning

From Jamil Smith's "Invisible Man," Fall '95 However, it is naive and foolish to ignore the fact that too many students have become slaves of their grade point averages, too many professors have been blinded by their grants and research, and too many administrations have submitted to the whims of high-paying alumni and federal contributors. Certainly not believing themselves to be naive and foolish, two newcomers to the University's administration, President Judith Rodin and Provost Stanley Chodorow, apparently saw some of the obvious problems with "the undergraduate experience" at our beloved University. On October 19, these two administrators took it upon themselves to write a paper that addresses how "to create a greater seamlessness across academic life, housing, advising, and extracurricular activities." This document, entitled "Implementing a 21st Century Education," gives a list of principles which would supposedly be ideal for "the undergraduate experience." This document has one central flaw, however. It is apparent that the president and the provost have assumed that there is merely one undergraduate experience, and that alone poses a danger to every undergraduate here. Obviously, I, a young black man living in urban Cleveland, am going to have different experiences and sensitivities that have shaped my personality than a student that has a completely different history. If thinking such as that expressed in this document is permitted to remain unchallenged, the result of this will be one undergraduate experience -- one in which a minority (or perhaps minorities?) of students will find that what once were their individual academic, social and pre-professional experiences here at the University were coldly sacrificed in favor of those of a supposed majority. And just who make up this "majority?" They are difficult to identify simply because no students contributed to these "principles." It is apparent that Rodin and Chodorow consulted no one on the undergraduate level when drawing their vague outline of how they (not we) plan to change our "experience." If the University truly is the microcosm of society that we all profess it to be, then why should certain groups of people be forced to submit to someone else's determinations about how (and where) they should live? Unfortunately, it is evident that Rodin's and Chodorow's opinions reflect those of a great number of people. For instance, in the section entitled "Faculty Centered," the document refers to how "the undergraduate experience at Penn is created and sustained by Penn's faculty." If this were true, then the Penn faculty would be "sustaining" me when I go to Student Financial Services to pay my bills. They would be "creating" a way for me and other students to be able to get a decent meal. How do you think they'd like that? What Rodin and Chodorow obviously fail to recognize is the student's life outside of the academic arena and the fact that the real problem with the academics here at Penn lies with the faculty. As I stated earlier, many professors and instructors have become slaves of their research and quest for tenure. No university's faculty should ever have to be "recognized and rewarded for their engagement with students"; one would think that this is something they should be doing without encouragement. Perhaps if we focused on that problem, we would not have many of the problems with academic life that we do. In the sections entitled "Intellectually Engaged" and "Residentially Integrated," Rodin and Chodorow ignore one of the aspects of the University that makes it so intellectually engaging - the Living-Learning Programs. In "Intellectually Engaged," they state that "the undergraduate experience" should consist of a free and open-ended intellectual dialogue between student and faculty. This is precisely what goes on as we speak. In College Houses such as DuBois and Hill, faculty- and graduate students-in-residence interact with the undergraduate residents on a daily basis. The interaction, as many know, is not purely on a social level; forums, events and even visits can evolve into an enriching intellectual experience for everyone involved. The section "Residentially Integrated" shows that despite the programs that create an intellectual atmosphere outside of the classrooms at the University, the president and particularly the provost believe that they can simply implement "one or more academic communities of students, faculty, and staff based in and supported by a residential system through which students receive ? various kinds of counseling and advising." Chodorow, who earlier stated at the undergraduate education forum on January 16 that he had "no opinion" of the Living-Learning Programs, blatantly contradicts himself here. If he really had "no opinion," he would not have published statements such as these, much less have encouraged a system akin to that at his former workplace, the University of California at San Diego. Chodorow inappropriately assumes that the system that "worked" at UCSD will do the same here at Penn. By proposing residential systems whose sole purpose would be to "support and enhance the academic programs," these two administrators threaten a basic element of what is truly "higher learning" – a Penn student's unique opportunity to live in college houses which help elevate his or her mind above the insecurities, fears, and confusion that accompany the first year of college. The student is exposed to housemates who share experiences and interests, and graduate fellows and faculty members who can give beneficial advice and support in a situation, whether it be academic, social or even pertaining to a profession. In academically-concentrated dorms, a student like myself would never have the chance to see the same University through the eyes of a future engineer or a nursing student or a Whartonite. Those perspectives are important to breaking down stereotypes about different concentrations, preparing for future human interaction, and opening minds to, as Rodin and Chodorow put it, "create a greater seamlessness" across the University. The vision of the "One University" would not be threatened and the great deal of learning that takes place when students associate on a non-professional, non-academic level would not be put in jeopardy. However, if Rodin and Chodorow get their way, future students might be deprived of their right to -- their need for -- higher learning. Jamil Smith is a sophomore English major from Cleveland, Ohio. Invisible Man will appear alternate Tuesdays this semester.