In October 1978, Rosovsky appointed nine Faculty members on the Core committee to represent a range of fields. While the Core had been approved, this committee was charged with designing the new curriculum.

The committee was made up of the chairs of seven Core subcommittees—one for each Core area of study, plus expository writing and the math requirement.

In addition, Paul C. Martin ’52, dean of the Division of Applied Sciences, and Edward L. Keenan ’57, associate dean of the Faculty, served as ex officio members; two students appointed by the Education Resources Group were non-voting members.

Many members of the committees were already veterans in the creation of the Core.

Shattuck Professor of Government James Q. Wilson chaired the original task force on the Core set up in 1975.

Bernard Bailyn, Winthrop professor of history and chair of the Historical Studies subcommittee, was influential in defining the five areas of study the Faculty eventually approved, and in designing the Historical Studies requirement.

Unlike most schools, Harvard had kept its General Education courses separate from its interdepartmental offerings, thereby avoiding many interdepartmental squabbles.

But even Harvard did not completely escape the problem of academic politics, which complicates general education reform.

Professor of Biology Otto T. Solbrig, the chair of the Mathematics and Science subcommittee, sponsored an amendment to the Core legislation which urged the committees to experiment with allowing students limited options to bypass Core courses with departmental offerings.

Solbrig, Lowell Professor of the Humanities Walter J. Bate and Associate Dean of the Faculty and Chair of the Expos subcommittee Glen W. Bowersock ’57 said that they strongly supported this bypass proposal and “floater” plan that would have allowed students to transfer one half-course of the Core requirement to another field of study.

Wilson expressed opposition to the bypass plan, warning that it might “convert a carefully conceived opportunity for flexibility into a generalized departmental bypass.”

CORE STRUCTURE

Disagreement arose not only over Core policies, but over selection of Core courses as well. In this debate, science and African American studies took center stage.

While science was a major focus of the Core curriculum, some professors thought that the effort was not enough.

Solbrig said that he was “sympathetic” to the view of some science professors that the Core did not require enough science and mathematics.