Harvard and General Education

In the midst of the Second World War, Harvard president James Bryant Conant decided education was more than just taking courses. Witnessing the onslaught of the Nazis, Conant sought to define a unified concept of general education –a broad vision of education for all Americans. The outcome of this commendable effort was the so-called “Red Book” of 1945 which described general education as “that part of a students’ whole education which looks first of all to his life as a responsible human being and citizen.”

As a result of that effort, institutions across the country took Harvard’s lead and subsequent generations benefitted from a cohesive and rigorous core curriculum.

That’s why Harvard’s recent report on its curricular review is so disappointing. At a time of breathtaking change in our society, Harvard had the opportunity – just as it did in 1945 – to establish a vision of general education in the 21st century.

Instead the elephant has produced a mouse –a report with many good ideas but lacking in the courage and foresight of Conant’s Red Book. Harvard’s explicit focus on international study and science are to be commended. But by allowing choice to be a lodestar for curricular design, the faculty has opted for the path of least resistance when it comes to general education. The great promise of the proposed Interdisciplinary Courses – what appears to be a sort of optional core curriculum – is severely undermined by the faculty’s insistence on retaining distribution requirements as an alternative approach to general education, something that we address more fully in our report, The Hollow Core.

This does a disservice to those of us who care deeply about general education and who hoped that Harvard’s efforts would prompt a penetrating national conversation on the nature, structure, and importance of “general education” in free society.

I don’t know whether Kirby’s departure will make a difference. But I hope that his departure will provide an opportunity for the faculty and President Summers to revisit the very valid criticisms which have been raised about the curricular panel’s efforts to date.

Anne Neal, President at Americn Council of Trustees and Alumni, at 9:25 am EST on January 30, 2006

Chuck,

Please make your thoughts more clear.

Has it come to your notice that Ms. Neal, Mr. Summers, and Mr. Kirby are in favor of interdisciplinary studies? Do you share their commitment to the idea of interdisciplinary studies as a whole? Or is it (just) ethnic studies and/or women’s studies to which you object? Or do you mean something specific by the “political advocacy” that you feel sullies these fields?

If you object to interdisciplinary studies as a whole, surely you cannot feel sympathetic to Ms. Neal’s concerns. If you object to internecine tensions within the fields mentioned, your bone to pick is surely not with Harvard, but with the practitioners within the fields themselves (faculty, student activists, etc.). If you have other challenges to raise, I for one would be interested to hear them.

savitri, at 5:30 pm EST on January 30, 2006