Over the last two decades, many colleges and universities have implemented a variety of "orientation to college" courses. Although the particulars of these classes tend to vary from institution to institution, their primary objective is essentially the same: to increase the probability that incoming students will be more successful in their academic pursuits.

     The administration at Western Kentucky University piloted Freshman Seminar, our "orientation to college" course in the Fall of 1996; it subsequently became required for all incoming students in the Fall of 1998. Since its inception, Freshman Seminar has received mixed reviews. Many see it as a blessing. Some see it as a curse. Others just don't understand what all the fuss is all about.

     Recently, however, a few faculty members have begun to seriously question its utility to the general curriculum, especially as a "required " course. In fact, the University Senate at Western has periodically engaged in rather heated discussions regarding the future of Freshman Seminar.

     This debate, and the passion it has elicited in many faculty and administrators at Western, says a lot about contemporary academic culture.

     The mindset of many faculty is obviously stuck somewhere in their romantic recollections of a higher education that has long ago vanished. Evidence of this outdated way of thinking is everywhere. "We've become too soft." "We need to restore the curriculum." "We need to get back to basics." Many faculty seem to long for the good old days when everything was more black and white.

     But what does this have to do with Freshman Seminar you might ask? Everything.

     Much to the apparent chagrin of many faculty, higher education is currently in the midst of a major redefinition. The nature of the academy has changed significantly during its 450-year history in this country. Since the middle of the 19th Century, colleges and universities have had an increasingly narrow focus. But the world is becoming a much different place than it has been throughout much of the recent past. As Toffler, Nesbitt and other have astutely noted, we have entered a new era.

     What we selectively forget is that in the beginning higher education was primarily concerned with the development of the whole person. Indeed, within the first institutions established in what was to become the United States, it was not unusual to hear faculty routinely discuss such relevant issues as character development and moral imperatives. This was particularly true of the English model of higher education, which emphasized the transmission of culture as opposed to the creation of new knowledge.

     When American higher education began to incorporate the German model into its infrastructure about 150 years ago, however, the focus of the academy shifted dramatically. It became preoccupied with empirical research. And faculty became almost exclusively fixated on the development of the intellect.

     But even the German model is now yielding to a new conceptualization of higher education, one which has its origins in the revolutionary technologies driving the Information Age. As in its early years, the development of the whole person is once again becoming the philosophical mantra of higher education. Indeed, unless the academy becomes more intensely focused on the psychological, social, emotional, and yes, spiritual (as opposed to religious) development of the students it serves, it is destined to slowly wither away and die.

     We can't afford to let this happen--and not just because this is the place where a lot of us earn our livelihood.

     We need to recognize that what worked in the past will not sustain us into the future. The reality is that students need more direction than ever before from faculty, and not just in their intellectual pursuits. They need faculty who are concerned about them as human beings and understand the importance of developing nurturing relationships. They need faculty who care about their total development--not just the cultivation of their minds. They certainly do not need faculty who consider their lectures "sacred" and their offices "holy ground."

     More than ever before, students need faculty who are concerned not just about how much they know, but about what they truly need. Extraneous definitions aside, all students are "at risk."

     At its core, Freshman Seminar is not about economics, return on investment, retention rates or even "at risk" students. It is about accepting students as total beings and doing everything within our power to help them be successful--not just in their studies, but in life as well. It is about caring for students--a concept that is apparently foreign to many faculty.

     Are their problems with consistency in the course content? Sure. Do we need to try to make the experience more relevant to everyone who takes the course? Of course. But such problems and difficulties are not confined to Freshman Seminar. They occur throughout the curriculum. And in an age which values flexibility, expediency and diversity, consistency is a vastly overrated concept anyway.

     What we do not need are more isolated anecdotal horror stories that some see as "evidence" of the superficial and extraneous nature of Freshman Seminar. Our lawmakers routinely pass legislation based on the well-articulated and emotional rumblings of a relatively few disgruntled and obviously clueless citizens. We should be above this exceedingly shallow approach to the evaluative process in higher education.

     Lastly, I am a little concerned by the characterization of administrators as the "enemy" of reason in this debate. Yes, the idea for Freshman Seminar came from the administration. So what? The notion that "the university is the faculty" and that we somehow have an insight into truth and virtue that administrators lack is disconcerting and just plain wrong.

     Remember, it was the administration that brought the campus into the 21st Century technologically. The networked computers that have boosted our collective productivity at Western came from an administrative initiative. If faculty had undertaken this task, we'd still be having intense yet esoteric committee discussions about where to put the comma in some circuitous proposal that we were endlessly revisingBand we=d probably still be using rotary phones. In many instances, the diligent pursuit of absolute technical precision, it turns out, is neither desirable nor advantageous.

     The point is that sometimes even faculty need to shown the way.

     Do we need Freshman Seminar? Yes. Absolutely. The real question is whether or not we have the courage to do the right thing. I hope we do.