The Student Assembly discussed possible alterations to the College's interdisciplinary distributive requirement and almost unanimously voted in favor of an amendment to its constitution classifying legislation into three different categories at last night's meeting.
Lindsay Whaley, chair of the Committee on Instruction, the body in charge of assigning distributive assignments to particular classes, gave a short presentation to inform the Assembly of an ongoing effort to revise several aspects of the College's distributive requirement system.
Most notably, Whaley discussed the possibility of revising or even eliminating the College's interdisciplinary requirement, which he described in its current state as "being a mess."
According to Whaley, over 300 seniors were in danger of not fulfilling the requirement and that originally, no interdisciplinary courses were to be offered during spring term. He added that although this was fixed and that several interdisciplinary options were added for next term, "something needs to be done."
Whaley presented three separate options for revising the current system. The first would include revising the current definition of the requirement. Whaley also mentioned the possibility of adding additional courses or changing current courses to qualify under the requirement, though he said that this was the least likely option.
According to Whaley, interdisciplinary classes add a large financial burden to departments, as they are specifically required to be team taught by professors of different departments, often taking them away from classes within their own departments.
A third option included the elimination of the requirement altogether.
Added to the topic of distributive requirements was the possible elimination of what Whaley called the "strange conglomeration" of the philosophical or historical analysis or religion requirement, instead replacing it with one called thought, meaning and value. The plan would allow the history department to move under the social analysis requirement.
The amendment passed last night will divide legislation passed by the Assembly into three explicit categories: statements, pieces of legislation expressing the Assembly's stance on an issue, event or policy; proposals, ones that acknowledge the Assembly's stance and also include a plan of action; and resolutions, which would carry out both of these tasks and also present research from outside sources.
In her address to the Assembly, Vice President Julia Hildreth '05 said that the amendment would not "change what we're doing, but improve our efficiency" and that it would give the assembly "more breathing room" when passing legislation. Hildreth said that with the changes to the Constitution, it will be easier for those outside of the Assembly to interpret and classify its decisions. Members offered several comments and concerns to the amendment before voting 32-1 in its favor.
Assembly member Shardul Oza '06, the only member present last night who voted against the amendment, said that he would have instead preferred a system with two classifications, one for statements, which would offer an ideological stance on an issue, and resolutions, which would include a stance and a call to action.
"I spoke to a few people before the meeting, they told me they were opposed to the idea of three different kinds of legislation," Oza said. "But nobody ended up voting this way. A lot of senior representatives spoke up in favor of the amendment and this probably had influence on the others."
Also passed last night was a unanimous decision offering $1,000 to fund a campus-unifying event the Assembly sponsors each term. The Student Organizations committee will oversee the actual choice of the event.
