During what Dominguez calls a series of “epic” Faculty meetings—several of which were so overwhelmingly attended that they had to be held in the Science Center rather than in their customary location in the Faculty Room on the second floor of University Hall—professors hashed out the remaining controversial details of the legislation.

Finally, on May 2, the Faculty adopted the Core Curriculum in a landslide vote of 182-65.

Rosovsky began the debate on the motion on the Core plan by asking that the Faculty not vote against the Core out of doubts that it could be effectively implemented.

“I ask you to have faith in the process, in what we are trying to do,” he said. “I ask you to believe that we can surmount problems of implementation.”

Then University President Derek C. Bok asked for a vote by show of hands, and afterward, Charles P. Whitlock, then-associate dean of the Faculty, announced the final tally.

At a press conference after the meeting, Rosovsky referred to the Faculty vote as “an IOU from the Faculty to students,” to be paid off when the Core was fully implemented.

The 10 Core areas that were agreed upon were: Literature, Fine Arts, Music and Contexts of Culture, Historical Orientation, Historical Process and Perspective, Social Analysis, Moral and Political Philosophy, Physical Science and Mathematics, Biological and Behavioral Science and either Western Europe (including language) or a major non-Western culture.

Faculty members today express their enthusiasm for the changes that were implemented and their confidence that the IOU promised by Rosovsky had come to be at least partially paid.

“I have no doubt that the Core curriculum was an extraordinary improvement on the curriculum at Harvard College,” says Dominguez.

Mansfield, too, says he was pleased with the changes, pointing to what he saw as the weaknesses of the Gen Ed system.

“It was a great improvement on Gen Ed because that had fallen into commotion,” he says.

Today, Harvard sits on the brink of yet another major curricular review. A central aspect under examination will be the Core Curriculum—and whether the requirements developed 25 years ago are still the most appropriate method of ensuring breadth in the Harvard education. And as professors and students prepare to get the upcoming review off the ground, many wonder whether answering this question will be as contentious now as it was in 1978.

—Staff writer Laura L. Krug can be reached at krug@fas.harvard.edu.