My professor for Modern Scottish Literature is also apparently in charge of overseeing the curriculum for next year, and has decided to be an activist in that position, or so he puts it. Seems to me more reactionary, in the sense that he is reacting to low enrollment in literature classes; not many non-majors cross over, apparently. He shared his idea to create a sense of community in the department, which is for the faculty to present the undergrads with a "gift" (his word) of a reading list that all students should have read by the time they receive their diploma. Not a terribly bad idea, but undoable in the literary community's current anti-canonical state. Besides, I think most students have plenty of ideas for topics for outside readings, both from personal exploration and culled from suggestions of various professors, suggested reading that could not be accomodated during the quarter, or simply asides during lectures about authors of tangental relation to the course work but nevertheless of value. I just found it interesting that a professor would devote time in class to discuss the fostering of the literature department as a community, something which is sorely lacking.

He didn't mention the major scandal in the literature department, however. Unfortunate a very well-thought-of faculty member (I've met him but never had a class taught by him) would fall under such negative scrutiny, but lying about degrees, even if you were hired for your abilities and not your education, strikes me as a major transgression. Strange this seems to come up so often lately, in universities. I would think fabricating a college degree would be harder to do. Maybe I should give more credence to those e-mails offering me an instant college degree.