On at least two occasions the Kernel has characterized faculty concerns about the proposed USP revisions as opposition based on an “increase (in) instructors’ workload.”

I believe this is an inaccurate and un-nuanced condensing of the issues that were raised by faculty at the three meetings held during the week of Oct. 22.

At the second faculty forum on Oct. 24, questions raised were focused on potential practical problems of implementation across disciplines within the university, and how some of the proposed changes might adversely affect the preparation of students in some majors for courses they need to take later in their college careers.

Questions were also raised about specific proposals in the new curriculum such as how UK students are expected to be “global citizens” in a program in which study of foreign languages and international culture is underemphasized. In the meeting I attended, there was no mention at all of concern that changes would affect faculty workload.

The faculty as a whole were very appreciative that their input was solicited, and the many speakers did their best to make constructive contributions to the discussion. The thoughtful comments made at that meeting were clear evidence that the faculty who took time to attend did so because they had sincere concern for UK student education at heart.

Andrew Maske

Assistant professor

College of Fine Arts