Beset by delays and doubts throughout its three-year development, the curricular review received another blow this weekend when its shepherd, Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby, resigned.

Kirby has led the review since its start in 2002. Countering claims that the review lacks a compelling or innovative vision, Kirby wrote in a letter to the Faculty only two weeks ago that a time of “formal discussion and decision” on the curricular review had arrived.

Yet while Faculty members stress their commitment to reforming undergraduate education, many worry about the unrest created by Kirby’s abrupt departure and its implications for professors and administrators.

“I think one would have to have a crystal ball to know how [the curricular review] is going to come out,” said Watts Professor of Music Kay K. Shelemay, who is a member of the Committee on General Education. “I think there is deep and wide concern at this latest event in an already stormy period.”

RUMORS AND RESIGNATION

The manner in which Kirby’s resignation occurred was a major source of ire for professors.

“It is a shame that he has been treated the way he has—with rumors last semester that he would be fired and with this sudden resignation,” Sociology Professor Mary C. Waters wrote in an e-mail. “It does not bode well for finding a strong person willing to put themselves into a position where they could be mistreated this way.”

The resignation occurred Friday evening before Kirby had time to contact many colleagues and members of his staff.

Several faculty members criticized the influence of what they view as an alarming number of anonymous comments and press leaks. The abruptness of the announcement was “precipitated by leaks,” History Department Chair Andrew Gordon said.

“Some of us are getting pretty fed up with seeing Washington-style leaking and back-stabbing becoming standard procedure,” Classics Department Chair Richard F. Thomas said. “How do we educate students in such a climate?”

HEART OF THE TENSION

Saltonstall Professor of History Charles S. Maier, who is currently writing a textbook with Kirby, said the announcement was a surprise that “took me aback.”

“I don’t know what it indicates,” he said.

While many other Faculty members said they were not surprised that Kirby had resigned his post, the ultimate causes behind his departure remain contentious.

“I guess it’s not surprising to anyone that this has come,” Government Chair Nancy L. Rosenblum said.

“Faculty response is mixed,” Rosenblum said. “There is a great deal of division as to the causes of this problem.”

Gordon specifically cited the cause of Kirby’s departure as his “increasingly difficult, unworkable relationship” with Summers.

“He resigned because President Summers didn’t leave, and obviously the two of them together was not a situation that could continue,” Peter K. Bol, Charles H. Carswell Professor of East Asian Languages and Civilizations said.

Bol said Summers’ “bad-mouthing [of] the dean in private conversations with the faculty” contributed to Kirby’s departure.

“Everyone understands why Dean Kirby thought it was impossible to work with the president,” Bol said. “The question is if there is any person who as dean could work with the president.”

Gordon also noted that some faculty were frustrated last year with Kirby’s failure to “stand up more forcefully” during the aftermath surrounding University President Lawrence H. Summers’ comments on women in science, but said Kirby felt it was “important to present a unified front publicly.”

SPRING-ING FORWARD?

In spite of Kirby’s departure, many Faculty members said they expected the curricular review to proceed as planned.

Kirby described the “full agenda” before the faculty this spring and Summers called for a “productive spring semester...which will be an important one for the curricular review” in his letter responding to Kirby’s resignation.

While the proposals of the review enjoy far from universal support among the faculty, several professors highlighted the continued commitment of the Faculty to the project.

“People are not tired of” the curricular review, Rosenblum said. “The Faculty takes this very, very, seriously.”

Kirby wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson in January that he expected the recommendations of the Educational Policy Committee, including a move to limit concentration requirements, to be voted on during the first half of this semester. A vote on the general-education proposals is also expected in the spring.

“It is surely problematic that the colleague who has spearheaded the review is now a lame duck.... This is decidedly unhelpful,” Shelemay said. “But I would expect that the review would move forward.”

Some departments, including the history department, have already begun planning how to implement changes suggested by the curricular review, Maier said.

“My guess is that the suggestions for concentration changes will pass easily and on the schedule that the dean wants,” Rosenblum said. “It may be that at this point there is an emergent consensus.”

An emergent consensus has long been sought by advocates for the curricular review despite criticism from within the university and outside commentators, including the New York Times. Kirby’s departure appears unlikely to cause any major shift in faculty members’ opinions of the review’s proposals.

“It is the Faculty, not any one dean, who at the end of the day will determine the curriculum,” Kirby wrote in an e-mail to The Crimson yesterday.

“Adoption of the curricular review proposals will stand or fall on how people view them, to some extent regardless of whether Dean Kirby is there or not,” Gordon said.

FUTURE OF THE REVIEW

With much left to accomplish and growing unrest among professors, the curricular review faces significant challenges in coming months.

Only seven Faculty meetings are scheduled for the spring and some Faculty members are unsure how much time will be spent discussing Kirby’s resignation during those meetings and how much will be left to debate the review.

The curricular review’s progress ground to a halt last year as Faculty meetings were monopolized with discussion of Summers’ comments on women in science, culminating in a vote of no-confidence in March.

“If something [from the curricular review proposals] is not adopted this semester, all bets are off,” Gordon said.

The dissatisfaction of many with the climate of the College may also prove an obstacle to moving forward.

“I think that one worries not just about succession...but what further institutional damage is done by more instability,” Shelemay said.

Many stressed Kirby’s devotion to the goals of the College and expressed hope that the curricular review will continue to receive faculty support.

“I think people will show up [to vote]...when specific legislation and proposals are on the table,” Gordon said hopefully. “Maybe I’m naïve.”

—Staff writer Allison A. Frost can be reached at afrost@fas.harvard.edu.