The debate that led to the creation of a new, two-quarter “Civilizations” sequence at the University of Chicago on gender and sexuality centered around a couple of big questions: Why doesn’t the College's Core curriculum examine gender and sexuality in a more sustained and rigorous manner? If gender and sexuality are fundamental categories of human existence, isn’t it important to include them as part of any study of civilization?
It took two years and numerous lunches and committee meetings with the faculty who teach in Gender Studies to bring the idea for the new sequence to fruition, according to Prof. Linda Zerilli, director of the University’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality.
“You had people coming from every imaginable discipline to put this together,” says Zerilli, the Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and the College. She adds that the new Civ proposal was spurred by strong interest among numerous professors who teach in the Gender and Sexuality Studies program, but base their work in other disciplines.
“We thought, wouldn’t it be great if you had students learning about the fundamental importance of gender and sexuality as analytic categories, and then take the questions that they learn to ask in our Civilizations sequence into their other Core courses?”
Faculty are the driving force behind the Core curriculum, deciding which books get read and what courses should be elevated or cast aside. But creating a new Core sequence comes with extensive debate, discussion, and revision. The Core’s intent has remained consistent since it was established: to introduce UChicago students to the tools of inquiry used in science, mathematics, humanities, and social sciences, providing a general vocabulary that current students share with their peers and alumni of the College.
John W. Boyer, dean of the College, who along with the Collegiate Masters, has ultimate approval over new courses, says the bar for creating a new Core sequence is high.
“Changes to the Core are the subject of a great deal of faculty conversation, usually friendly, but always quite vigorous,” Boyer says. That’s because the faculty generate the Core, “from the bottom, up,” and their interests and needs are always changing.
Since its formation in the 1930s, the Core curriculum has changed dramatically, as faculty have debated the value of certain texts, shaped and reshaped the course offerings, and sometimes added to them or paired them down.
“We estimate that every ten years something like a quarter or more of the faculty at the University change as people come, go, retire, die, and new faculty come in with different ideas of what they want to teach,” Boyer says.