Salisbury University (SU) is heralding its newly revamped General Education curriculum for Fall, 2024, as a modern solution to prepare students for today’s challenges. But beneath the glossy endorsements of innovation, the new framework seems to abandon essential academic rigor and depth. While SU’s administration and student news sources of the past have praised the new direction, the real question is whether the changes represent true progress—or a significant step backward.

The Push for Relevance at the Expense of Tradition

SU’s revised General Education requirements focus on three trendy themes: Civic and Community Engagement, Diversity & Inclusion and Environmental Sustainability. These topics, which appeal to contemporary political and social priorities, are designed to produce graduates ready to tackle modern issues. But, in making these themes mandatory, the university has stripped away foundational courses in history and literature—subjects that have long been central to a liberal arts education.

By removing the requirement for history, SU is ignoring the value of understanding past human experiences, cultures and events—critical tools for any well-educated individual. Similarly, literature fosters essential critical thinking, empathy and the ability to interpret complex narratives and diverse perspectives. Without these courses, students may leave Salisbury with glaring gaps in their education.

 Uncritical Enthusiasm of the Past 

Past coverage of the new General Education model reflects an uncritical and overly enthusiastic stance, praising courses like Professor Elsie Walker’s African American Cinema for its focus on issues of race, gender and privilege. While these subjects are undoubtedly important, the broader implications of the curriculum’s shift toward identity politics at the expense of a more comprehensive academic foundation are questions that have failed to be answered

Professor Walker’s course has been cited as a shining example of the new model, discussing concepts of identity and self-awareness through film. Yet, the difficulty of replacing essential literary analysis with pop culture studies has been overlooked. Is watching Get Out really a sufficient substitute for engaging with the works of Shakespeare, Faulkner, or Morrison? One must wonder whether the “humility and curiosity” is enough to compensate for the critical thinking and analytical skills that literature courses traditionally foster.

The Signature Outcomes: Buzzwords Over Substance

The new “Signature Outcomes”—which require students to complete courses in Civic and Community Engagement, Diversity & Inclusion and Environmental Sustainability—appear to prioritize political correctness over academic rigor. Depending on your point of view, these are important areas of study. However, they shouldn’t replace core academic fields like history and literature. These signature courses seem designed more to align with current social trends than to ensure students graduate with a well-rounded education.

The Diversity & Inclusion requirement, for example, is intended to address issues highlighted by SU’s 2020 Campus Climate Study, which reported incidents of exclusionary conduct based on racial identity. Without further integration of history, literature and philosophy—fields that inherently explore questions of humanity and justice—SU risks turning these buzzwords into little more than academic checkboxes.

The Danger of a Shallow Curriculum

By prioritizing these new thematic areas, SU is turning its back on the long-standing mission of higher education: to develop critical thinkers capable of understanding the complexities of the human condition. Emphasis on the university’s “forward-thinking” model ignores the fact that interdisciplinary thinking is only valuable when paired with deep academic inquiry.

Can a student truly be considered well-educated if they lack an understanding of the historical events that shaped the world or the great works of literature that define human experience?

Instead of celebrating the intersectionality of diversity and inclusion with other topics, it is arguable that students would benefit more from engaging in courses that require deep intellectual engagement with the world’s most challenging questions.

The removal of history and literature requirements represents a loss, not a gain, for future students.

Conclusion: Are We Really Moving Forward?

SU’s new General Education curriculum is being marketed as forward-thinking, but the reality is that it sacrifices academic depth for shallow trendiness. The removal of history and literature requirements raises serious concerns about the future of intellectual development at the university. Rather than simply adding courses that reflect current political concerns, SU may have made more progress by finding a way to integrate these themes into a curriculum that retains the rigor and substance of traditional academic disciplines.

The new model may prepare students to talk about diversity and sustainability, but will they be equipped to understand the historical and cultural contexts that shape those discussions? That is the real question the Salisbury University community should be asking.

---

By LUKE HARTLAUB

The-Examiner Section Editor

Featured image courtesy of Colin McEvers