This week, faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences are voting on a new general education curriculum for the Quaker Class of 2031. It’s been nearly 40 years since the current curricular framework was introduced, and over 20 years since any major revisions. Students have asked for change. Faculty have asked for change. And this moment — when the value of education itself is being questioned — calls for it.
A recent guest column, “Why we must vote no on curricular reform,” takes issue with the process by which the proposal was developed. To be clear, the authors do not raise concerns about the substance of the proposal; they acknowledge that reform is needed and note many pedagogical merits. Instead, their concern is with what they characterize as a violation of the norms of shared governance. Specifically, they claim that the voices of non-tenure-track faculty have been excluded.
That claim is inaccurate.
I have been part of the conversation on curriculum reform since its earliest stages in 2023, first as a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Education and this year as its chair. CUE is a standing committee in the College charged with overseeing undergraduate education. In the course of this process, multiple committees were constituted, and faculty from all divisions of the College, including lecturers and staff, as well as students, worked together to bring their best ideas to the table to design a curriculum that reflects what we all believe a Penn education should be.
Together, these committees drafted a proposal for a new curriculum, which was shared and vetted with faculty during fall 2025 and spring 2026. Some of this work took place in departmental meetings, but our most extensive outreach happened through organized symposia. While the format of each symposium differed, each provided opportunities for feedback, whether through surveys, breakout groups, or feedback sessions. Both standing and non-standing faculty were invited to symposia held in May 2025 and August 2025. And in February, the College held an additional three-hour “Curriculum Conversation” dedicated to lecturers.
The College committees also held multiple feedback sessions on various aspects of the new curriculum, open to all faculty, including lecturers. College Dean Peter Struck or Deputy Dean of Undergraduate Studies Molly McGlone were present at these sessions, along with chairs of the relevant committees. There were numerous other opportunities for non-standing faculty to share feedback over the course of the year and additional requests to meet, either with committee chairs, Struck, or McGlone, were all honored.
It is worth noting that the proposal also includes a detailed plan for ongoing assessment and adjustment. This includes explicit provisions for discussions with lecturers to assess their experience with the curriculum.
Non-standing faculty play a central and vital role in undergraduate education at the College. It is simply not true that their voices were excluded from the conversation. We have drawn on their wisdom, experience, and insights through their participation on committees and through the many channels created for feedback. Should the proposal be adopted, we will continue to listen and learn from them as the curriculum is implemented and refined.
It is true that our bylaws reserve voting for standing faculty. Whether that should change is an important but separate conversation from whether to adopt the new curriculum. And voting no on the curriculum will not meaningfully advance that conversation. Instead, it undermines the collective work non-standing faculty have contributed and delays the reform that students want and deserve.
I ask my colleagues to vote yes, based on the merits of the proposal and in recognition of all the faculty who helped build it.
COREN APICELLA is a Psychology professor and the chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Education. Her email is capicella@psych.upenn.edu.
