Many members of the Faculty are sympathetic with the need to give the Gen Ed Committee more muscle; its lack of power is one of the obvious weaknesses of the present system. Still, many may be wary of having the Dean of the Faculty head the committee, since he also has paramount responsibility for administering and coordinating the various departments.

Athough he has stated his support of the report, Dean Ford is, in fact, uneasy about assuming the Chairmanship of the Gen Ed Committee. He understands that people could be concerned about "University Hall running the whole show." And, more importantly, he feels there is a potential conflict of interest; as head of Gen Ed he would conceivably have to compete with men--the department chairmen--whom he is supposed to supervise.

Second, the report asks that the departments be the "principal means by which the Faculty responsibility for General Education is discharged." This would mean, suggests the report, that each department contribute 10 per cent of the time its faculty spends in undergraduate teaching to the new program.

Not only will the concept of a 10 per cent contribution require more complete definition (how many professors, assistant professors, section men etc., go into the formula), but departments who aren't taxed too heavily now in terms of personnel lent to Gen Ed may oppose what suddenly seems like a rather severe burden. Mathematics, Government, Economics, and the sciences all may share this view.

Third, the report proposes that in recognition of the time and professional risks involved in teaching Gen Ed, a system of incentives should be established to attract faculty participation, specifically, more liberal requirements for sabbaticals.

Departments may oppose this suggestion because it will draw professors away from teaching in middle level courses. In addition, many may feel that such provisions are simply superfluous; if something is worth doing one needn't be bribed.

Given the variety of possible objections to the report, one may ask, which ones will spark sufficient controversy to cause significant amendments? At the moment, except for those concerning the administrative reorganization, the answer is, probably none.

This is not to suggest that there is a consensus for the Doty Report. Some think it says too little, some too much; some think it's gone too fast, some too slow; some think its too liberal, some too conservative. But it will be difficult for those who aren't really happy with the report to find a flag around which they can rally.

More important, the report already has a good deal of momentum. The Doty Committee took two years and much pain to arrive at unanimity. The Committee on Educational Policy approved the report 8-1, and the one dissenting member, Frank H. Westheimer, Morris Loeb Professor of Chemistry, will be doing research this fall and doesn't plan to oppose the legislation actively. The Dean of the Facuty favors the report. Besides, the advocates are operating in something of a power vacuum; very few individual professors who have not already had a hand in the report care enough about General Education to thing through substantial amendments and lobby for their passage.

Only highly motivated departments pose a concerted threat to the work of the Doty Committee. And even departments rarely vote as a bloc. Certainly, if this happens it will be because the individuals in a particular department have arrived at the same conclusion, not because a department chairman has decreed it. "No one is going to be a party boss in this," suggests Franklin Ford. Also, faculty votes are noted for their lack of parochialism.

In short, there may be no great consensus for the report, but there will probably not be a great debate. What controversy there is will most likely center around the changes in administrative structure not the means and ends of General Education. And even there, it is likely that accommodation within the broad guidelines of the report will be reached between the college and dissident departments.

Perhaps one member of the Doty Committee hit on one key difference between the present report and the Redbook, one which also reflects a contrast in tone and ambition. As he said, "That may have had a greater national impact, but we will probably get most of ours passed.