Emory Report

April 27, 1998

 Volume 50, No. 30

Recommendations (Part II)

Shared aspirations, practicality define path to excellence

Facilitating interdisciplinary and collaborative scholarship

An abundance of interdisciplinary and collaborative activity goes on at Emory, and the deans, provost, and president have been forthright in their support of it. Many, if not all, departments are in some degree intrinsically interdisciplinary, having more or less continually assimilated the knowledge and methods of other fields and refocused their teaching and research to embrace contemporary questions as they have evolved. None-theless, a widespread perception remains among the faculty that such cooperative work is not encouraged and that strong barriers to it exist in many parts of the university.

Undoubtedly, the principal problems are budgetary and administrative, not intellectual. Even so, we should recognize that we academics are sometimes more competitive, more chauvinistic, and more limited in our special competencies than is consistent with a fluid exchange of ideas on their own merits. If we recognize these natural tendencies and limitations, we may be able to strike a better balance between our investment in traditional departments and the less-structured terrain that lies between them.

Recommendation 20. The academic leaders of the university should communicate clearly their commitment to facilitate and support-where the interest and opportunity arises-the development of strong interdisciplinary and collaborative programs of teaching, research, and service among schools and departments.

There is no stronger antidote to disciplinary insularity than the knowledge that the president, provost, deans, and department chairs support interdisciplinary teaching and research. The support of interdisciplinary collaboration, as distinct from a singular emphasis upon traditional disciplinary scholarship, should be understood to be a matter of institutional policy.

This policy should be affirmed in several ways-for example, by strengthening those departments that do not now have the capacity to support interdisciplinary programs; by developing and encoding in the Faculty Handbook policies and guidelines to support interdisciplinary work; and by financial support and incentives.

Recommendation 21. As recommended by the Commission on Teaching, a Council on Interdisciplinary Concerns-with adequate staff support-should be appointed to assess the administrative environment in some detail and advise on the conduct of interdisciplinary teaching, research, and service.

This council should be chaired by the provost and be constituted of a mix of deans, directors, faculty, and students. The council should advise the administrative leaders on the implementation of all recommendations in this section and should be especially attentive to the following tasks:

  • cataloging and assessing the amount, variety, and conditions of interdisciplinary scholarship at the present time;
  • recommending criteria for evaluating and supporting interdisciplinary
  • initiatives;
  • identifying barriers to, and developing guidelines and best-practices recommendations for, interdisciplinary work;
  • identifying the resource needs and suggesting budgetary mechanisms and sources of funding for supporting interdisciplinary work more adequately;
  • clarifying departmental responsibilities and limitations and devising means for crediting the contribution of individuals, departments, and schools to interdisciplinary programs; and
  • identifying those intersections where Emory may have special strengths and opportunities for collaborative and interdisciplinary programs.

Appendix C of Teaching at Emory should serve as the originating document for the Council on Interdisciplinary Concerns.


Recommendation 22. The provost, deans, and department chairs should devise mechanisms to recognize and support contributions of faculty to programs outside their schools or departments.

Other than time and workload, the greatest barrier to collaborative teaching, research, and service is the absence of ways to recognize, evaluate, and reward such work. The departmental culture is often perceived to devalue and discourage participation in extradepartmental programs.

From a faculty perspective, the need is for greater freedom and flexibility in teaching, research, and service. From an administrative perspective, the need is to find ways to accomplish our shared goals without unduly compromising the autonomy of individual departments and schools.

Three broad practical solutions to this problem need to be explored: developing clear policies and guidelines governing extradepartmental work; creating a budgetary mechanism to support interdisciplinary and collaborative work, as well as a fair and balanced way of distributing their cost; and inventing means to recognize and give credit for different kinds of scholarship and work across departmental and school lines. Specific aid might include model contracts between departments and collaborating programs, provision in personnel reports and promotion recommendations for noting and evaluating such work, and mechanisms for consulting with the heads of collaborating units about salary and promotion decisions.


Recommendation 23. More faculty with interdisciplinary interests should be appointed; moreover, the capacity to support joint appointments among departments and schools should be facilitated. As recommended by the Subcommittee on Interdisciplinary Teaching of the Commission on Teaching, the university should consider establishing a series of floating chairs or University Professorships aimed at fostering extradisciplinary scholarship.

Quality always must be the first consideration in appointing faculty. In most instances, however, there need be no tradeoff between this goal and the appointment of scholars with serious interdisciplinary interests. Indeed, as already noted, many faculty members in the departments are engaged in interdisciplinary teaching and research. Still, deans and chairs should keep one another informed about faculty searches and should consider the more frequent use of joint search committees at important intersections. In addition, they should freely support joint appointments when they are in the interest of effective, innovative scholarship. In view of the risks that extradepartmental commitments entail for junior faculty, joint or interdisciplinary appointments will best be made at the tenured ranks. The provost should explore incentives for interdisciplinary appointments, such as sharing the cost of faculty lines with collaborating units or increasing funding to enable joint appointments to be made at a tenured rank.

Recommendation 24. The path should be cleared to enable well-prepared students, undergraduate as well as graduate, to pursue interdisciplinary curricula.

The Subcommittee on Interdisciplinary Teaching has provided excellent recommendations toward this goal (see Appendix C of Teaching at Emory), and its recommendations should be the guide for continued discussions in this arena. Among the easiest to attain of its recommendations are: the establishment of a uniform academic calendar; the creation of a campuswide course atlas; facilitating cross-registration and joint-degree programs; and offering more interdisciplinary courses, seminars, and conferences. More alternatives to the traditional major and minor-such as the Environmental Studies program; the curriculum of the Center for Study of Health, Culture, and Society; the new Violence Studies minor; and the Center for the Study of Public Scholarship-should be explored.

There are risks (in employment opportunities, for example) as well as advantages associated with pursuing a nontraditional course of study or degree. Therefore, students pursuing a nontraditional option should be both highly qualified to take advantage of the experience and carefully advised and supported by faculty mentors.

Recommendation 25. The university should sponsor annually a major interdisciplinary seminar or conference. The now well-established annual conversations with faculty, staff, and students should be continued around issues of importance to the campus community.

A remarkably common commentary in recent years concerns both the lack of opportunities for people in different disciplines to come together and the importance of such interactions. Opportunities for this interaction should be deliberately created and institutionalized, and they should be supported administratively. Such occasions obviously should focus upon internal problems and substantial issues rather than on the abstract notion of interdisciplinarity. This recommendation can be combined with recommendation 17.

Recommendation 26. Emory should identify resources to support interdisciplinary scholarship. It should set a long-term goal to create an endowment to support interdisciplinary teaching, research, and service.

Underlying this recommendation is the need for more resources to support both departmental and interdepartmental programs of the highest quality and for recognition of the rigidity of budgetary structures that channel the vast majority of funds into the traditional academic units. While interdisciplinary scholarship is currently supported through collaboration and should continue to be, there is little latitude to reallocate university resources to support explicitly interdisciplinary initiatives. Yet, if the integrated model of scholarship we are espousing is to flourish, it should be reflected in the budget. This goal can be achieved by a combination of several means, including: raising new endowment or other gift funds; allocating a share of the annual growth in the budget into a central discretionary fund; and pooling contributions from the schools and colleges, either in terms of funding or faculty effort, to support interdisciplinary programs.

Keeping pace with infrastructure needs

The recommendations in this section deal with major new building and renovation priorities, the Campus Plan, the information infrastructure, staff, and faculty governance. Several of these recommendations are already under consideration and are included here for emphasis.

Recommendation 27. The Board of Trustees and administration should continue to develop an aggressive plan to fund and build critically needed buildings, and should make strenuous efforts to initiate these projects within the next one to three years.

The most critically needed facilities include the Arts Center, the Cancer Center, the Medical Research building, the Physical Sciences building (Science 2000),19 and the School of Nursing building. The quality of university programs depends first and foremost on the quality of faculty, staff, and students; nonetheless, our ability to attract and support individuals of the highest quality is inextricably tied to the availability of such facilities. This fact is particularly true in the performing arts and the physical, biological, and medical sciences, which are so directly dependent upon the facilities and technology that support them. These projects are urgent. Without them, opportunities will be lost and our future development will be severely curtailed.

These buildings represent, in the aggregate, the need for a financial investment by the university well in excess of $100,000,000. It is essential, therefore, that our policy of leveraging endowment funds with matching gifts be continued, and that campaigns targeted at these projects continue to be developed and implemented as promptly as possible. The Trustees and others who bear the weight of this enormous responsibility will, of course, be governed by their collective wisdom in fiduciary matters, for which the university community is already deeply indebted. Three considerations should be given careful thought as together we plan for these projects. First, further delay in their construction will result in lost momentum and an increase in their eventual cost. Second, in the case of those buildings that have little prospect of major gift support, serious consideration should be given to alternative financing plans. Finally, some of these projects, notably those in the sciences, have the long-term potential to augment income significantly from government grants, industrial contracts, and patents. These buildings are investments with the potential for great financial as well as academic return.

Recommendation 28. The Campus Plan should provide the basis for a regular program of campus development to be undertaken in the next five to ten years.

The firm of Ayers/Saint/Gross was engaged in 1996 to create a plan for the long-term development of the physical campus. As we go to press, this plan is being published. Its implementation will be very expensive and take many decades to complete. Yet it will begin to have an immediate impact upon the quality of the campus environment as its guidelines and recommendations are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and construction. The recent development of the North Kilgo Plaza and the adjacent Tull Plaza-in conjunction with the newly renovated social sciences, humanities, and Callaway buildings-are examples of the positive augmentation in the quality of the campus environment that can be achieved quickly at moderate cost.

A synopsis of the Campus Plan is presented in the appendix.

Recommendation 29. The university must create a plan for unified development, management, and funding of information resources.

Of the many forces driving change in universities, few have the power to alter faculty and student life more than digital technology. It presents intellectual, economic, and administrative problems and opportunities that demand collaboration and cooperation among scholars and departments; and it has unequaled power either to knit together or fragment the intellectual community. The digital revolution is no longer new, but even so, neither the magnitude of the investment that is required simply to maintain the status quo nor the long term intellectual, organizational, and economic implications is yet clearly understood. In order to plan for the coherent management and development of information resources, two things are needed.

First, Emory should establish a strong federated mechanism for supporting developmental initiatives and determining funding priorities that are in the interest of the entire university. Focusing primarily upon academic needs, the Digital Information Resources Council was created in 1996 in part for this purpose. This council should be strengthened in several ways: it should enjoy the full support of the provost, deans, directors of libraries, and the vice provost for information technology; be delegated the responsibility to recommend institutional policy; review the plans and initiatives of the units for consistency with university priorities; and manage resources sufficient to support the developmental initiatives that are essential for competitive teaching, research, and service programs. The central role of the council should be to promote the evolution of a unified, coherent, cost-effective institutional digital strategy.

Second, an evaluation and planning process for digital information resources should be established immediately. This process should provide us with a basis for confidently assessing the strengths and weaknesses of our information environment, understanding the technical and organizational choices we face, and better projecting and controlling costs. Despite-and in part because of-the advances we have made, we are constantly near crisis as we strive to keep up with the technical advances, the growing needs of the academic community, and the ever-rising costs required to hold the ground that we have gained. Care should be taken to assure that this review is not merely technical. It should bring to bear upon the problem both the technical expertise and the academic and institutional perspective that will assure a confident understanding of what Emory must do to be competitive in this area.

Recommendation 30. The university should develop core scientific facilities that are needed to support basic and clinical research and graduate education.

Significant science cannot be done today in most fields without access to skilled staff, advanced technologies, and support facilities. In a community of Emory's breadth, the needs range from access to human subjects and animal-care facilities to the most advanced microchemical and imaging technologies. Such needs are too expensive for a single scholar or even department to support, and must be developed and funded on a collaborative basis. Emory does not yet have a full constellation of such facilities. A plan should be written that identifies the most serious needs in ordered priority and provides guidelines for their development and management. These guidelines should address the following desiderata:

  • a financing policy that strikes a viable balance between affordability and access-that is, between self-generated revenues and school or university
  • subsidy;
  • a strong orientation toward serving the needs of faculty and students;
  • an administrative locus and governance structure that balances local accountability to the primary users with broad access; and
  • a priority that anticipates emerging fields of scholarship as well as the current strengths and interests of the faculty.

This plan should be built upon proposals that already have been developed in recent years in the School of Medicine, extrapolating and augmenting those proposals to embrace the entire university as need and feasibility warrant. Full advantage should be taken of evolving collaborative programs, such as Science 2000.

Recommendation 31. The Program and Budget Committee should complete the development of an electronic inventory of university space and facilities.

Development of such a system, known as the Facilities Management Information System (FMIS), was begun in 1995. For various reasons, it has not yet been put fully into operation. Such a management-information system is necessary to support efficient and effective use of our expensive and scarce space. FMIS will support a wide variety of functions, including scheduling, maintenance, community services and facilities planning and construction, and cooperation in the use and financing of space among the units. For this reason, FMIS is an essential tool in the development of a more coherent, integrated campus. A firm schedule should be established for its completion.

Recommendation 32. The University Senate, with the collaboration of the president, should appoint a task force to analyze faculty governance at Emory and recommend revisions based on a sound understanding of the purposes, responsibilities, and limitations of governance.

Good governance should improve teaching and research. It should uphold academic standards and support change. Many of the recommendations in this report depend critically upon two things that derive from good governance: a sense of ownership and responsibility for the whole by our individual members and a conviction that the success of the units and the university are inextricably tied together. Strong governance is an essential means for achieving our goals. Thus, this task is an important one. It should be undertaken by those who have considerable experience with and commitment to it (as for example, past presidents of the University Senate).

Current governance structures reflect a fragmented archipelago of local interests and accrued practices more than a carefully designed structure for coherent decision making. The goal now is to devise structures that better link governance and administration at the department or school level and the central university. Today, conversations at the two levels are insufficiently and inconsistently connected. There is too little complementarity between the two and sometimes even mutual negation of one by the other.

University governance brings together elements ordinarily associated with administration and an array of faculty committees and consultation practices. Governance might thus be viewed as two gradients of responsibility, one with its center at the local or faculty level and the other at the university level. The governance structure suggested would be neither fully democratic nor fully hierarchical. It would reflect instead a differentiation and distribution of rights and responsibilities according to such criteria as expert competency, accountability, the rule of disinterest or neutrality, institutional perspective, and capacity to bring about change. The interplay of these factors has made the difference between modern American and most other universities of the world.

To make any headway with this challenge, a serious effort will have to be undertaken. The work will include both a review of and recommendations for pruning ineffective or supererogatory committees and proposals for the design of new or altered governance structures that are sufficient to the task of efficient and meaningful participation of faculty and other constituencies in the governance of the institution. The objective of the proposed committee would not be to redistribute the balance of authority between the local and central levels, but to establish a more effective dialogue between the two. The charge to the committee should therefore include clarification of the distribution of responsibility and principles that underlie the purposes of governance; evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of governance structures and the practices that link or divide the two levels; and recommendation of changes to improve upon present practices particularly to connect governance and administrative processes at the unit and university levels.

In light of the recommendations of this committee, schools and departments should revise their internal governance structures to assure that they intersect effectively with university governance.

Cultivating external relationships

The day of the ivory tower is long past. There is no sharp line between what is internal and what is external to the university. The recommendations in this section range from relationships with local communities to international education. The common tie among these recommendations is that they concern activities that occur off campus and involve engagement with individuals, communities, or other entities outside the university.

Recommendation 33. Emory should articulate a clear vision and policy to guide its external relationships and programs.

The external dimension of Emory's programs has grown greatly in recent decades. Many programs-such as the Office of Government and Community Affairs and the Michael C. Carlos Museum-are either dedicated entirely to the external arena or devote a major share of their energy and resources to this purpose. Yet, there is not a clear understanding among the faculty, staff, and students of the underlying institutional vision or policy that guides these relationships. Development of a policy should begin with understanding of what we mean (or do not mean) by external and internal and with the recognition that in many arenas physical and organizational boundaries belie the nature of our teaching, research, and service programs.

Beginning with the premise that we have a responsibility to use knowledge to serve social ends, three basic ideas should guide our policy: service programs must rest upon partnership with those we serve and will neither be effective nor long endure on the basis of a unilateral spirit of altruism alone; the reliability of scholarship, even as it is applied in service, depends upon a dispassionate and objective attitude about the outcomes of inquiry; and the service mission of the university should advance the scholarly and teaching mission of the institution and must therefore be consistent with our academic priorities and expertise. Obvious as they are, these principles will be difficult to honor in practice unless our external programs are developed in close relationship to our overall academic mission.

Recommendation 34. Emory should frame a strategy to guide further development of its external programs and relationships.

To facilitate the development of an intentional external strategy, Emory should decide upon an administrative model of support such as those set forth in the President's Conference on University-Community Partnerships.20 The models suggested there range from support of better communication to the creation of a center responsible for funding, monitoring, and evaluating community projects.

With some notable exceptions-such as clinical medicine-our current external profile is a collage of unrelated fragments. A strategy should stop short of prescribing specific programs and activities, but should support the evolution of a coherent program of external relationships. Examples of questions that should help shape a university strategy include the following:

  • How should external activities and programs build upon the scholarly function of the university? What budgetary priority should they have?
  • Can information about our external programs be systematized, disseminated, and advertised in a manner that will promote a coherent concept of our external agenda?
  • Are there any particular areas or issues in which we have special competency, opportunity, or responsibility and around which we should develop strong external programs?
  • What should be the level of responsibility and involvement of the academic units and the central administration of the university, respectively, in defining and supporting external programs?
  • Can we integrate external programs into the curriculum and manage cocurricular activities in a way that consolidates rather than atomizes the educational experience of students? How can service or other external experience be encouraged for all Emory students?

A successful architecture of external programs will, within reason, both allow for fluid individual, extemporaneous, and often ephemeral initiatives, and support a satisfying sense of order and focus that is consistent with our greatest strengths. Emory should consider whether a selected set of foci or centers should be created to consolidate our efforts and magnify a sense of identity and visibility. Such foci already exist, for example, in important aspects of public health, medicine, and theology, and in recently established offices in community, government, and international affairs. Ideally, given the intrinsically interdisciplinary nature of most social and environmental problems, a few such centers might function as gateways between those foci of interdisciplinary strength that we wish to foster on the one hand and external agencies and communities on the other. Thus, a greater overall consistency and coherence among and accessibility to our academic and external programs could be generated than exists at the present time.

Recommendation 35. Emory should continue to develop a complete inventory of its community and external programs and to systematize and disseminate this information within and outside the university.

Such an information base is needed in order to understand better and assess the scope and effectiveness of our external programs. It will be used as the foundation for further development of a coherent and well-understood university strategy. Excellent initial steps already have been taken in the Community Partnerships at Emory survey21 and in the annual reports on international students and programs submitted by the Office of International Affairs. Such information should be systematized and distributed in ways that will make it accessible and more easily understood, and that clearly communicate the importance Emory attaches to its external partnerships and its commitment to such involvement, locally and globally. Ongoing administrative support should be provided to assure that these inventories are current and comprehensive. In view of the ever-changing profile of external partnerships generated by individuals, departments, schools, and other programs, this information is ideally suited for publication through digital networks. Consideration should also be given to publication of subsequent editions of these surveys in paper format-especially if systematic organization of it proves to be possible-because of the more integral sense of programs that can be fostered by a physical document.

Recommendation 36. The university should develop a more comprehensive advisory structure to help Emory realize its full potential for educational, research, cultural, and service programs in the region and around the globe.

As noted in the "Briefing Book" for the Conference on University-Community Partnerships,22 hundreds of faculty, students, and staff spend thousands of hours each month engaged in community activities. The same goes for professional and international activities. Yet, these efforts are neither fully developed nor adequately coordinated with either our basic academic structure or our various external constituencies. Thus, they have not yet achieved their full potential to enhance the educational and scholarly mission of the university or to serve the public interest. Relationships that are still in some ways tentative need to become solidified into a more extended, committed, and stronger Emory community. This condition will arise only from active involvement of our friends in the affairs of the university.

While the investment of care and energy that will be required for success is great, it is essential. Building upon the excellent foundation that already has been laid in such organizations and programs as the Association of Emory Alumni, the Regional Programs Office, the Board of Visitors, the Board of the Carlos Museum, and other good examples, Emory should encourage further development of effective advisory structures of alumni, professional, and industrial peers, as well as community and government leaders. Guidelines to help schools, departments, and other programs cultivate such advisory structures as appropriate would be particularly useful.

Recommendation 37. Emory should continue to develop an aggressive and coherent strategy to promote internationalization and globalization of its educational, research, and service programs.

In theory, universities are intrinsically global: knowledge, ideas, and communities of scholars know no national boundaries, except as they are politically imposed. Nevertheless, a number of considerations have made the unconstrained development of international and global programs difficult in practice. They depend heavily upon special competencies in language, culture, politics, and other knowledge that few individuals fully master; they are subject to nationalistic forces and global political winds. The participants and programs often are susceptible to isolation within the university community. Ironically, being intrinsically interdisciplinary, they must overcome the same barriers inherent in the disciplinary structure of the university that other interdisciplinary and collaborative programs face (see recommendations 20 through 26).

An effective strategy, therefore, must involve more than a declaration that we will increase the number of international students, scholars, or research venues, offer courses in language and comparative and area studies, and provide interaction with students and scholars from other countries and cultures. These things are basic. To be truly global, an Emory education should assure that through course work and experience, students learn to analyze issues from a global perspective, understand evolving transnational organizations and structures, and consider the future of humanity in a culture that is increasingly global in its interests and experiences.

The recent revisions of the college curriculum, expansion of study-abroad programs, and stronger emphasis in many of our professional schools on international and global study and experience are steps in the right direction. Our strategy similarly should support those faculty already engaged in international teaching, research, and service, and should encourage other faculty to develop international and global perspectives in their own teaching and scholarly pursuits. The recently established International Fund, the Halle Institute, and the various forms of support provided by the schools and colleges for international initiatives are important steps in this direction.

Our long-term strategy should confront and deal with the limitations mentioned above so that international and global programs can evolve as integral parts of the programs of our departments and schools. An internationalization and globalization strategy should include the following: a clear statement of our goals; identification of the factors that limit or facilitate progress, and the fields in which we have special strengths or opportunities; identification of the support structures needed; explication of the relationship between central and unit goals and responsibilities; and identification of the funding requirements. Our understanding of these issues must evolve with experience.

At the behest of President Chace, the vice provost for international affairs, working with the International Affairs Council, has developed a plan for internationalizing Emory.23 This plan, which begins to address the issues articulated above, should be aggressively pursued and should be continually reevaluated and reshaped as progress is made in this arena.

Recommendation 38. Emory should cultivate its partnership with The Carter Center as a means of focusing the resources of the university upon important social problems and of building strong and unique education and research programs.

As a matter of both policy and practicality, The Carter Center focuses its resources upon a limited number of areas where there is an immediate opportunity to improve human well-being. At the present time, these are embraced in two broad categories: health and disease, and human rights and conflict resolution. The underlying principle of applying knowledge directly to improve the condition of mankind and social justice has broad implications for the entire university.

However, while the mission of The Carter Center and the university are entirely congruent in principle, the institutions are different in important ways, as reflected by their modi operandi: The Carter Center focuses upon urgent problems where it can make a difference today; it seeks prompt relief for suffering people; and it places a high value upon the capacity to shift its focus and marshal the political, financial, and intellectual resources that are needed to address such problems quickly. The university, on the other hand, places a higher value upon extended attention to a problem or an idea, upon the autonomy of its individual members to determine their own scholarly agendas, and upon the critique and synthesis of knowledge and development of explanatory theory.

In order for the full potential of this partnership to be realized, Emory must reflect a serious commitment to the interventionist philosophy of The Carter Center in its teaching, faculty appointments, and academic programs. The Carter Center in turn must demonstrate a consistent commitment to applying and advancing theoretical concepts through its practical agenda, following the established principles of scholarly work. The University-Carter Center Working Group on implementing the center's strategic plan has identified the basic conditions that will need to be met to institutionalize the link between The Carter Center and the university to the long-run benefit of both:

  • joint faculty appointments between the university and the center, within the scope of the center's mission, must be made as the foundation of the relationship;
  • a governance structure must be established that regularly engages faculty in decisions about the programs of the center, thereby assuring greater congruence of interests and method of approach and greater stability of programs; and
  • greater access of faculty and students to the resources and opportunities provided by The Carter Center, and vice versa, must be supported.

Much progress toward these objectives already has been made. The future implementation of the plans of both the university and the Carter Center should be guided by these principles in order to assure that full advantage is taken of this unique relationship.

Recommendation 39. Emory should continue to develop as a major intellectual and cultural center of Atlanta and the region.

With few exceptions, great universities are the principal wellspring of the intellectual and cultural life of their communities. Their culture of tolerance is particularly well suited to foster new and innovative work in the arts and humanities, ahead of cultural mainstreams. This role greatly enriches the communities of which they are a part; it provides faculty and students with essential opportunities to develop their creative talents; and it constitutes an invaluable adjunct to the political and economic base of the university.

Through a large array of programs, activities, and individual initiatives, Emory already has established itself as a vibrant part of the cultural fabric of Atlanta. Yet these programs have grown up largely through individual initiative, without the apparent guidance of any institutional policy or strategy. It is not clear that we are either reaping the full benefit of our current investments in cultural programs or that we are meeting our full responsibility or our own needs in this arena. The barriers to full development of our leadership in the cultural life of Atlanta range from mundane problems of traffic and parking to the current underfunding and underdevelopment of some of the core programs in the arts and humanities. Perhaps most critical of all is the need for a performing arts facility (see recommendation 27) and other spaces adequate to support a full program of cultural events and performances.

Like intellectual life (see recommendation 9), this is not a goal that can be willed. For this reason, a systematic examination of our opportunities and needs and clarification of our goals in this realm should be undertaken in the expectation that our role should be enhanced and expanded.

Recommendation 40. The deans and faculties of the schools and of Campus Life are encouraged to consider whether all Emory students should be enabled to participate in community-based or international experience before graduation.

University policy on graduation requirements always must emanate from the faculty. In view of the practical and philosophical complexity of such a requirement and the various ways by which it could be attained-ranging from relatively unstructured volunteer work to formal courses-opinions on its merits undoubtedly vary greatly. Nonetheless, many faculty and staff earnestly have suggested that such an experience would make an Emory education richer and more distinctive, and should be required. Recognizing that such a requirement is already an intrinsic part of some degree programs, careful consideration should be given to making such opportunities available to all students.

Faculty should consider whether all such student programs should include both experiential and conceptual (e.g., a course or seminar) components. This measure could help assure that the greatest possible educational benefit would result from experiential work, and perhaps would encourage greater unity in the curriculum, broadly defined. In view of the inherently interdisciplinary nature of most social issues and settings, problem-based, interdisciplinary programs-such as those in Violence Studies; Professional Ethics; the Elementary Science Education Partnership; Volunteer Emory; and Health, Culture, and Society-provide excellent models for further development.

Return to April 27, 1998 Contents Page