To the Editor,

After I graduated, I picked up on the disquiet growing among some Pitt students with regards to the University Honors College. Having benefited from UHC activities myself, I became concerned after reading the coverage in The Pitt News on this issue.

First, I think the Pitt undergraduate community should maintain perspective. After the passing of Dean Alec Stewart, a replacement was needed. Naturally, under Dean Edward Stricker, the UHC today is different from the UHC of yesterday. That is simply the nature of leadership and organization.

Second, I do not believe there is as much of a philosophical “divide” between the old and the new, as some students might make it out to seem. Sure, “intellectual curiosity” is a warm sentiment that is important to any student. However, I believe it’s reductive to separate it from “academic achievement,” what is being presented as the antithesis. To achieve something, you must first be curious. I guarantee you that even pre-health students ask “why?”

By forgoing the ethos of “intellectual curiosity,” the UHC could be more inviting to people of all academic backgrounds, including the applied disciplines. For example, it is less likely that a nursing student will pontificate on the existence of God, but more likely he or she has thoughts on how to improve health care delivery. The aim of the UHC should be to accommodate all scholarship, and by removing a restrictive maxim, students traditionally outside the liberal arts circle would feel more welcome.

I think the comments added by Dr. Lewis Jacobson are important to recall. After Dean Stewart’s tragic passing, there was talk among students to rename the UHC after him. However, as those close to Stewart have shared, he wouldn’t have wanted his ideologies to echo through eternity.

I wish you all luck in resolving this issue. Remember the tradition of community and excellence Pitt has always been known for.

Best regards,

Abdul-Kareem Ahmed

Graduate of the Dietrich School of Arts & Sciences, ’12