Louis Menand turned in the “first draft” of his task force’s report early this month, and now he’s waiting to see if it will earn a passing grade.

The new General Education recommendations, which were crafted over the summer by a task force co-chaired by Menand and Professor of Philosophy Alison Simmons, still have “a lot of room for improvement,” said Menand, the Bass professor of English and American literature and language.

“You know you have to go back and respond to people’s reactions,” he said.

While few of Menand’s Faculty colleagues are rejecting the report’s thesis outright, they’re scribbling plenty of notes in the margins.

Like a teaching fellow in a Core course, these professors are taking points off for the omission of fundamental facts about economics and basic skills of scientific reasoning.

And several professors say the proposal’s thematic focus on “citizenship”—a word used seven times in the report—is too narrow.

The report, released three weeks ago, would require every Harvard student to take at least one course in each of seven areas: “Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change,” “The Ethical Life,” “The United States: Historical and Global Perspectives,” “Societies of the World,” “Reason and Faith,”
“Life Science,” and “Physical Science.” The report says that knowledge of these areas is essential to citizenship.

“Who can object to citizenship?” asked Dillon Professor of International Affairs Beth A. Simmons. But, she added, “There’s a whole host of things that I think a really well-educated person should know that isn’t directly and obviously linked to citizenship.”

“Is understanding Mozart citizenship?” she asked.

Other professors questioned whether the report adequately prepared students to be good citizens.

“What was noticeably missing in those categories was anything that looked like preparing people for citizenship by giving them an understand of basic economic principles,” Maier Professor of Political Economy Benjamin M. Friedman said.

Even non-economists brooded over the omission of the “dismal science.”

Without economics, “this is a curriculum for people who don’t have to earn their living,” said Jennifer L. Hochschild, who is the Jayne professor of government and African and African American Studies.

CRISIS OF FAITH

The element of the report that grabbed headlines from New Delhi to New York—the Reason and Faith requirement—also has its devotees and detractors here at Harvard.

“The province of the University is truth—Veritas,” Harvey C. Mansfield ’53, the Kenan professor of government, wrote in an e-mail.

“Whether truth can be reached by reason or by faith or by some combination should be open to question, and not closed down,” he added.

But Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family professor of psychology, counters in an op-ed published today in The Crimson (see p. A10), “Universities are about reason, pure and simple. Faith—believing something without good reasons to do so—has no place in anything but a religious institution, and our society has no shortage of these.”

And Mark Kishlansky, the Baird professor of history, warned of the high “opportunity cost” of the Reason and Faith requirement.

“This program really needs some social science categories,” Kishlansky wrote in an e-mail.

That could be accomplished by combining The Ethical Life and the Reason and Faith requirements, he added.

Professor of Psychology Marc D. Hauser said that the title “Reason and Faith” is “outrageous.”

Individuals on both sides of the secular-religious spectrum would object to the juxtaposition of terms, Hauser said.

“People in the Intelligent Design movement don’t think they’re unreasonable,” he added.

Hauser also questioned whether the two required science courses—both of which emphasize the societal impact of innovations—would leave students without a strong understanding of scientific methodology.

He worries that the new Gen Ed courses will focus so exclusively on the “outcome” of science that they will ignore “the skill set” of the scientific method.

The full faculty will begin its official discussion of the report at its Nov. 14 meeting.

Interim President Derek C. Bok and Interim Dean of the Faculty Jeremy R. Knowles have said general education reform is a faculty priority that they hope to see completed this year.

Professors must continue discussion of the Gen Ed recommendations on and off the faculty floor in order to meet this goal, Knowles said. “If we need more meetings we should have them,” Knowles said. “This is too important to let other issues delay it.”

—Anton S. Troianovski contributed to the reporting of this article.

—Staff writer Lois E. Beckett can be reached at lbeckett@fas.harvard.edu.