Does Hampshire love answers more than it loves questions?

Reflecting on Hampshire's current academic policy, it seems like Hampshire adores answers much more than it adores questions:

Answer 1: CEL-1, CEL-2, course-imposed division I

Question 1: How can students have a sense of progress and engagement such that they will stay beyond the third semester and complete a degree?

Answer 2: multiple cultural perspectives requirement

Question 2: In a world where previously more isolated cultural groupings find themselves less and less isolated, how can students be effectively prepared to engage in sensitive and appropriate interactions, with understanding and care?

Hampshire also has other answers, which in effect become academic policy in the form of a sometimes hidden or not so hidden curriculum:

Answer 3: Human progress, development, suffering and misery are all located first and foremost in the relation between individual and society, and must therefore be addressed primarily as issues of social change.

Question 3: In considering the nature of human progress, development, suffering and misery, how is action best apportioned between individual and societal efforts? Are analytical and action frameworks for these matters to be limited only to the secular, or is there an appropriate role and methodology inclusive of the religious/spiritual?

It would be nice if Hampshire allowed students to authentically explore these questions.