Noam M Elcott Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 1:31 PM To: “Amy E. Hungerford" , "Lee C. Bollinger" Cc: "James J. Valentini" , Emmanuelle M Saada , "Joanna R. Stalnaker" , david john helfand , "Nicole B. Wallack" , "Elaine R. Sisman" Dear Amy, Ira, and Lee, This letter is jointly authored by the Chairs of Contemporary Civilization, Literature Humanities, Music Humanities, Art Humanities, Frontiers of Science, and University Writing. Collectively, we have taught in the Core Curriculum for decades, led pedagogic seminars, overseen curricular and pedagogic reforms, and worked closely with instructors of every rank, from graduate students to senior professors. We know that Core classes are not only a vital part of the experience of students in the College, the School of General Studies, and the Fu Foundation School of Engineering, but they also serve as the foundation of a vibrant pedagogical and intellectual community on campus. This coming year, more than ever, Core classes will be the cement of our community. We have met almost every week since the Covid crisis began. For us, the pedagogic soundness of Core instruction is of utmost concern. After much consideration and deliberation, we believe that, when taught to NY-based students, the Core should take full advantage of in-person pedagogic opportunities that are safe and pedagogically sound. These include (as discussed at greater length below): trips to monuments and museums by students in Art Hum, Lit Hum, CC, Frontiers of Science, and University Writing; live, outdoor music on campus, available for all Music Hum students in the NY-area; small group discussions led by instructors and office hours outdoors; outdoor movies, with students masked and socially distanced; and other initiatives to be developed over the course of the semester. After careful consideration of the information available to us and discussion with our faculty, we think that the hybrid teaching modality advanced by the University is ill-suited for the interactive, discussion-based pedagogy that has been the centerpiece of the Core Curriculum for one hundred years. Whether it is suitable for other courses should be the determination of other units within the University. We believe that the best use of time, effort, and money toward online and in-person teaching in the Core is to leave the instruction online for our discussion seminars and maximize outside events and interactions in small groups as an integral part of the educational experience of students. The centerpiece of Core pedagogy is intense discussions guided by instructors but conducted by undergraduate students. An average hybrid class would include perhaps 10-20 students in a 50-100 person lecture hall, all masked (including the instructor), all at least six feet apart, all yelling at each other to be heard, as well as 10-20 students online, largely unable to communicate with the classroom students except through the chat function. As evidenced in the video attached to the EVPAS 7/27 message to instructors, discussion among students inside the classroom is extraordinarily difficult. (This is also the conclusion arrived at in one of the first studies of socially distanced classrooms.) In this video, we actually saw no exchange between classroom and online students: all online students had to resort to the chat function. The main instructor demonstrated the work necessary to switch from one camera view to the other and suggested the recourse to a TA to control the technology - an option which is not a possibility for a Core course. In an online environment, in contrast, discussion boards enable asynchronous discussions to unfold in advance of class; and during class, the breakout function has proven extraordinarily effective for intense student exchange. Online full class discussions unfold smoothly and easily over Zoom and no one is masked or distanced. Online classes are no one’s ideal teaching modality. But, again, after weeks of reflection among ourselves and consultation with our faculty, we believe they are pedagogically superior to the hybrid modality when it comes to seminar discussions with a group of 22 students (though we wholly support our colleagues who have chosen to teach in the hybrid modality). (There is also mounting evidence that classrooms are not nearly as safe as hoped or as promised. This is a matter of grave concern to us all, but one in which we lack appropriate expertise.) We have already worked extensively with Core instructors to construct learning environments that are dynamic, interactive, and discussion-based. Many of the innovations we plan to introduce in the fall—such as the mixture of synchronous and asynchronous interactive learning—will likely be staples of Core pedagogy for many years to come. We will welcome the return to in-person teaching in a post-Covid era. In the meantime, we strongly believe that online education is the modality that will best serve undergraduate students in the Core Curriculum. At the same time, we want to provide the best possible experience for the students who have been invited to come back to campus and for those who cannot do so. We hope to take full advantage of the campus and of New York to the extent possible for those students who are in the New York area. These activities could include small meetings with students outdoors in all Core classes, trips to museums and monuments for all students in the New York area (including visits to the American Museum of Natural History for all NY-based Frontiers of Science students), regular outdoor musical performances on campus, regular outdoor film screenings related to the Core (esp. Lit Hum and CC), and other activities deemed maximally safe and pedagogically sound. We consider such activities an implementation of in-person education superior to that of hybrid classrooms. They are also vastly more social than hybrid classrooms and will provide an urgently needed sense of community and connection, in addition to a sense of the urban vitality central to Columbia University in the City of New York. To carry out these activities effectively, we sincerely hope the University will consider tenting much of campus, as it does during commencement week. We believe there has been a missed opportunity for the University to encourage students back to campus through a two-pronged focus on superior online education, on the one hand, and irreplaceable in-person activities, on the other. Accordingly, we recognize that many students have stated a preference for “in-person” education. We do not, however, believe that students have arrived at this preference through a reasonable consideration of the numerous incumbrances of the hybrid model. Should students be presented with an accurate representation of a hybrid Core course, we believe that nearly all of them would opt for online education. We would welcome the opportunity to present model online Core classes to interested undergraduates right now in an effort to secure their enrollment for the rapidly approaching academic semester and to advertise the many Core related activities that we would like to offer on campus as a complement to online classes. Lastly and crucially, we recognize that the lifeblood of the Core is its dedicated instructors, including and especially those who are in contingent positions without tenure. Accordingly we ask the University to honor its commitment to support its instructors to choose the teaching modality best suited for themselves and their students. While we believe that the best modality for Core seminar classes is online instruction coupled with in-person activities, we have left the choice of teaching modality to Core instructors, following the commitment to free choice stated by the President, the Provost and the EVPAS. Specifically, we ask for written assurance that future and continued hires at all ranks will be granted the choice to choose the modality they feel is best for themselves and their students. The anxiety produced by the recent EVPAS letter has been detrimental for the community of instructors that will lead the Core Curriculum into its second century. And the regular emergency meetings convened to address the pressure campaign from above have distracted us from preparing for the actual teaching in the Fall and from organizing impactful in-person activities like the ones enumerated in this letter. Further, it has diverted investment from things we need (like well-ventilated tents) and poured them into things we don't need (like HyFlex classrooms). In short, we need the President, Provost, and EVP to listen to the pedagogic imperatives of the Core and to help us implement them, rather than dictate to us how we should be teaching. A clear signal of support for these instructors would energize all of us to construct the best possible Core experience in these trying times. We invite you to join us in a conversation to discuss these matters further. Sincerely, Noam Elcott, Sobel-Dunn Chair for Art Humanities, Associate Professor of Art History and Archaeology David Helfand, Chair, Frontiers of Science, Professor of Astronomy Emmanuelle Saada, Carnoy Family Program Chair of Contemporary Civilization, Professor of French Elaine Sisman, Chair of Music Humanities, Anne Parsons Bender Professor of Music Joanna Stalnaker, Paul Brooke Chair for Literature Humanities, Professor of French Nicole B. Wallack, Director, Undergraduate Writing Program and Chair, University Writing