1 20 11 https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/00690617ce9e01573dfcd7e8bc3f0610.pdf ed4bc5647a757347772b9f81566ebf05 PDF Text Text )'; LETTERSfrom . S~TJta Fe APRIL 1991 ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO j,_,; ,_- y .ta. l,;,1.1 ''1,j< John Agresto \ r.,; :,_ _ DIVERSITY' MULTICULTURALISM, AND E very now and then the academic community, as if in one spirit and one voice, turns to a new idea and, in virtually the twinkling of an eye, anoints that new notion with the oil of truth and the water . of orthodoxy. In our day this new truth is diversity. Diversity has a pleasing resonance to it. It sounds wholesome and right. It fits right into all the most contemporary trends in academic life: the proliferation of electives, the movement from colleges to universities . to multiversities, the triumph of relativism, and the liberation of the dormitories. If one can still use it as a term of praise, diversity sounds so ' 'American.'' The opposite of diversity sounds so rigid, so nasty, so reactionary that it surely has few if any adherents-classics, core curricula, coherence, canons. . . . With pluralism and diversity all the rage, who today dares talk of required courses ... except perhaps by some kind of odd paradox where the newly righteous might talk about requiring diversity everywhere. Indeed, it is amazing to behold how, in the name of diversity, all heterodox opinions are quickly being pushed out. If I am critical of the academy's newfound infatuation with diversity, I am critical only in part, since I do believe that we, as Americans and as educators, have an interest in upholding the principle of diversity. Diversity is a key element of this civilization, and one deserving of serious respect. Indeed, liberal education was always thought to be grounded in a kind of diversity-the belief that, through the study of the various arts and sciences, small and closed minds could be enlarged and opened, that new ideas would replace old prejudices and that we might begin to rise from opinion to knowledge- that we might see the world asd see it whole. Yet, today, diversity in academe hardly ever means the presentation of new perspectives, challenging ideas or divergent philosophies. It almost everywhere means dismantling the tradition of academic studies and erecting on its ruins courses that more neatly fit in with our contemporary ideas of class, .tlfblic f'1~~ c•aAL EDUCATION race, gender, and oppression. Almost everywhere "diversity" is code for the propagation of exactly its opposite-standardized exposure to contemporary ideology and to the politically oorrect. The greatest stumbling block to the new orthodoxy of diversity is still the notion of a liberal education, still the remnant of the old idea of a coherent curriculum built around a core of courses in Western Civilization, classical humanities, mathematics, the sciences, and the great books. There once was a time when enlightened opinion wanted such courses to be offered to everyone- rich and poor, high and low. Now the academy fluctuates between thinking there really are no such things as "great books," to thinking that the tradition is surely pernicious, at least in so far as it undermines the demands of contemporary pluralism and sensitivity regarding diversity. A Western Tradition of Diversity But of all the things that could be said in favor of the bookish tradition of the West and the traditional curriculum of studies, let me mention just one-diversity. Unlike contemporary "diversity, " liberal education always started with a respect for the diversity of outlook and ideas. For example, the past and its authors were studied not so much because they were like us as unlike us. Aristotle and Augustine defend social orders radically different from our own. Sophocles and Homer find praiseworthy or contemptible things quite at odds with current tastes. Dante and St. Paul are far more countercultural than Herbert Marcuse and Frantz Fanon any day. It was always understood that there was no learning the core of our own opinions without considering the divergent ideas of those radically different from ourselves. So, if it is diversity we are looking for-and we should be-the traditional curriculum is far livelier, far more radical, than today's academy is generally prepared to admit. So, properly understood, true diversity lies at the heart of Continued on page 2. INSIDE: THE DEATOWER "''I# t.::.?J I I" f. J I I �Diversity A Message from the President Contintv.dfrom page I . Dear Friends: Within the last year, "diversity" and "multiculturalism" have become the most important words in all of contemporary higher education. A quick review of the literature might even lead a person to think that an education in ''diversity'' was the primary goal of all learning. Indeed, as one college president quoted in these pages asserts, "no college or university can any longer call itself great unless its administrators, faculty, program and students fully reflect the rich, multicultural diversity of contemporary America.'' The error, the danger, the explicit misunderstanding of what liberal education is all about contained in that statement is what prompted the theme of this newsletter. On a related topic, after the last newsletter appeared, higher education became embroiled in what the press always seems to refer to as a "flap" over the question of minority scholarships. Donald Stewart and Linda Chavez were kind enough to write articles for our newsletter taking opposing viewpoints on this subject. I am especially grateful for their agreeing to do so on very short notice. Our selection of reprinted articles also includes an address by Donald Kagan, Dean of Yale College and one of our new trustees at St. John's. Finally, this newsletter contains a short, original essay by one of our tutors, David Bolotin, on the radical nature and radical consequences of the new diversity. Despite difficulties elsewhere, all seems well here in Santa Fe. The program continues to attract students in record numbers. One of our seniors is a new Rhodes Scholar-the first from our campus. And this June will mark the start of our first summer session for adults: a series of non-credit, week-long seminars on works from Plato to Heidegger. The summer will also find us hosting a free, six-week, public Shakespeare festival in the courtyard of our beautiful new library. Meanwhile, I wish you well, and I look forward to hearing from you about this issue. education. Education is meant to transform us, or at least give us the opportunity to be other than what we are, or what our society or class or parents or professors want us to be. The problem is that so much of what passes for liberation in education today is , instead, control, and control of the rankest sort. The dismantling of core courses has done less to liberate student minds tha n to ratify contemporary social beliefs a nd confirm contemporary prejudices. Without knowing the diversity of the full sweep of this civilization, our students will live only in the contemporary world, only in the present, only in the light of their own or their professors' opinions. We will find few people more narrow than the contemporary advocates of diversity, few people more illiberal than those who would u se the propagandistic potential of the classroom to possess their students' minds rather than let them possess their minds for themselves, few people more tendentious than those who claim that all education is political and then fulfill their own prophesies by propagandizing. Paradoxical as it may sound, every act by which traditional liberal education is today preserved and promoted is not simply a "conservative" act-for students it is a radical, liberating act at the same time. Knowing Our Cultural Foundations Of course, our cognition of true diversity is not the only reason for traditional liberal arts ~+~ Page 2 LETTERS.from Santa Fe April 1991 �''The traditional curriculum is far more radical than today's academy is prepared to admit. '' education. Despite all its manifest divergencies, disagreements and distinctions, the tradition of the West still is that-a tradition : it formed us as a people, as a particular civilization, a culture . We were formed both by what we took from it and what we discarded. If knowing something other than what you are is a great desideratum of education; the first desideratum is to know yourself. A person who is ignorant of the Bible, of the ancient stories and fables and myths, of the history of Europe, of the reasons for the Reformation, of Homer or Shakespeare-that person is lost in this culture. It is, to be blunt, more important for an American to know the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address than to know the principles of Eastern mysticism. It is, conversely, more important for a student in China to know something about Marx and Mao than to be able to identify the dates of the Thirty Years' War. It is also more important for recent Asian immigrants to know who Martin Luther King was than for American blacks to know the names of great figures in C ambodian politics. This is not arrogance on the part of Americans, nor on the part of other cutlurt's wht'n thl'y do the same. It seems, then, that what should be required are those books and studies that both teach students something about themselves and help liberate them from their contemporaries and from their professors and their prejudices. Our students need an education in both what has been handed down to them and in diversity of thought-always recognizing the unavoidable diversity within the tradition itself. Finally, liberal education should make our students think about universals: What is beautiful? What is ugly? What should I love? What should I hate? What is justice? How should I behave? How can I live a satisfied life in the midst of unsatisfied desires? How can I be a friend~ Why do all living things have to die? These are the kinds of questions our students ask before they are taught to become pedants and specialists. This is what they think philosophy and poetry might help them with, until they are taught that words have any meaning we wish, or all meanings, or no meaning. In fact, the real and perhaps only purpose for an education in diversity is to see April 1991 the truth about the greatest human things amid the cacaphony of discordant, diverse opinions. Diversity can be a catalyst for inquiry, and it properly ends in philosophy, not relativism. The greatest books and texts invite us to think about these universal issues-issues that go far beyond race, class, and sex. Contemporary diversity, on the other hand, abandons the study of real diflerences, abandons the quest for the discovery of universals and is tyrannized by the power of the particular and the merely accidental.• Author's note: This article was onginally an addms delivered and, as you might well understand, contemptuously treated at a meeting ef the Modem Language Association in Daember 1989. LETTERS from Santa Fe Diversity can be a cata/,yst for inquiry, and it properly ends in philosophy, not rel.ativism. Page 3 �THE DERISORY TOWER What follows is an editon.al that appeared in the New Republic on February 18, 1991. It introduced a series of essays on the worst of contemporary abuses in higher education, primanly on the topic of race. Although any number of those essays could have been worth repeating, the overview of the editon"al may be the most incisive of them all. -j.A. s ''Multiculturalism )) turns out to be neither multi nor cultural. carcely a generation goes by without a " crisis" in the universities. From Gibbon to Bloom the lamentation has become almost a literary genre. It is tempting to believe that if these crises did not exist , it would be necessary for social critics to invent them . Still, they have been real often enough . In our centu ry they have ranged from the malignity of totalitarianism in the 1930s to the insipid dem and for skills-of law, business, medicine, even politics- in the 1970s and 80s. Each has warped the integrity of university life, distracted the university from its central task of open-ended , disinterested inquiry. M ore recently, higher learning has been burdened by the weight of its own growth , by the preference for publishing over teaching, by the logic of bureaucracy. T he most com mon cause of these recurrent crises has been the demand that the umvers1ty conform to one orthodoxy or another . Amon g the roste r o f op ponen ts of free, su bversive tho ught have been the usua l suspects: religion , patriotism, M arxism, materialism , bourgeois propriety. These critiq ues of the old id eal of free academ ic inq uiry have usually succeeded in making people forget that such freedom is one of the higher and most powerful form s of subversion . And (happily) they have tended to elicit a spirited response in defense of heterodoxy at the heart of u n iversity life. Prisoners of R ace T he newest attack on the idea of a heterodox university is based on a familiar rejection of genuinely pluralist thought, a nd wishes to replace that thought with one of the most destructive and demeaning orthodoxies of our time. This orthodoxy, to summarize the core of the " m ulticultu ralists'" argument, is that race is the determ inant of a human being's m ind, that the m ind can not, and should not, try to wrest itself from its biological or sociological origins. There are accou nts both of the curriculum's transformation to conform to the dogma of race and of a revolution in admissions, faculty hirin g, lecturing, writing, speaking, and thinking to reflect this assumption . T his is not merely a philosophical quarrel. O n America 's campuses Page 4 LETTERS/rom Santa Fe todav tht' issut' of ract' is unaH >ida bk. Thl' imp;ct of affirm ative action upon the tenor of even the simplest class discussion is profound. Resentful whites jostle uncomfortably with suspicious minority students, struggling with situations they find personally overwhelm ing. Wdl-qualilit'd blacks and Hispanics ll-cl tlil' need to prove their worth, or are wracked with the suspicion that they m ay not owe their place to merit. H our upon hour of precious faculty time is spent soothing racial sensitivities or deconstructing the canon on ethnic lines. Deep-rooted racism-which still undoubtedly and regrettably exists on campus-blurs with legitimate reactions to the imposition of ''political correctness. '' O ur universities, which should strive for an iden tity in contradistinction to the world at large, have becom e distillations of our bitterest social divisions. At the bottom of this dispute is a n idea that is worth tackling at its roots. In its most popular form , "multiculturalism" holds that the traditional idea of free thought is an illusion propagated by the spoilers of freedom by the relations of power that obtain in any given society. It holds, more specifically, that the old liberal notion of freedom is o nly a sentimental mask of a power structure that is d efiniti o na ll y o p p re ssive o f those wh o arc not white W estern males. And this ideological and m ethodological principle is not merely a cautionary note to be taken into account when studying the established texts of W estern civilization; it is, in the ha nds of the ''multiculturalists, ' ' the very m eaning of- the deepest truth a bout-those texts. (Sometimes their argument is further complicated by the notion that no stable meaning at all can be attributed to texts, but we leave that issue to the j unior faculty. ) T he un iversity should therefore be devoted to blowing the whistle on those texts, to replacing them with those that identify and transcend this white male oppression , and indeed go beyond mere study to the actual defeat of the racial and sexual structure of society at large. An End to Open E xchange " Multiculturalism" tu rns out, then, to be neither multi nor cultural. In practice, its objective is a una nim ity o f thou ght o n cam pus that, if successful, would effectively end open exchange- exchange that would have to include the alleged represen tatives of patriarchy- and reduce the nuances of culture to the determinants of race. T rue multicultu ralism, which we applaud and hope to see flourish, would, in contrast, set no April 199 1 �borders to texts and ideas, histories and cultures, lives and images, from worlds alien to our own. It would attempt to account for the social and political context in all texts, as rigorous criticism must do. (Which texts, in what language, from which society, do not come to us from the midst of terrible relations of power? Certainly not the texts of the East). It would assume, as a matter of philosophirnl principle, that at least inner independence, freedom of thought and imagination, may be attributed to great writers and artists in all societies, however repressive. We are opposed to the current "multiculturalist" trend, then, not because we believe that accounting for sexual, racial, and political bias in text is not a worthwhile (though limited) intellectual exercise, but because we believe that it is not the only worthwhile intellectual exercise. What the "multiculturalist" criticism of the canon fails to grasp is that the canon is itself a cacophony, that it teaches not certainty but doubt, that it presents not a single Western doctrine about the true or the good or the beautiful, but an internecine Western war between different accounts of those values, which will rattle the student more than it will ever reassure her. The idea that Plato and Heidegger, Proust and Thucydides, Hegel and Freud are somehow intellectual equivalents because of their sex, race and class is absurd, and evaporates upon inspection. Indeed, many of the fathers of the "multiculturalist" church-Derrida, Foucault, Nietzsche, Gramsci-are themselves white males. How did they get away unscathed? Or does their work, too, express, however unwittingly, nothing but the social and sexual biases of their time and place? The university that we defend is a truly subversive institution. It is devoted to the pursuit of inquiry, with no end in sight, and with no justification except its own curiosity. It is dedicated to the life of the mind as a radically undetermined adventure, a ship on an endless and bottomless sea, open to all breezes (even multiculturalist breezes), deft in all currents, with no particular destination, and no harbor in sight. Soon, we hope, those April 1991 who share this vision-the real subversives in our universities-will emerge to defend it against the racial dogmatists. We have confidence that they will prevail, not least because students get impatient with the platitudes of political orthodoxy, but also because they will provide the proper context for the genuine insights of multiculturalism to be appreciated. We have no doubt that Foucault, Derrida, et al are worthy of study. Their ideas are not contemptible, and they have the old virtue of being dangerous. Tackling Race Relations in America Our quarrel with today's "multiculturalism," however, is based not only on a concern for thinking and teaching in the university, but also on a concern for tackling the real issue of race relations in our country. To be blunt, we do not believe that racism will ever finally be defeated by a sophisticated version of its own logic. An orthodoxy that prefers those texts that are racially pure, and advances those students whose race-and race alone-entitles them to study them, is one that will never free people from the iniquities of racial prejudice. It may even serve to entrench these habits of thought (or non-thought), as angry whites and angry blacks battle each other over the remn:mts of each other's pride. The furor over affirmative action in admissions and hiring in our universities and over a "multicultural" curriculum is, in fact, a bitterly ironic distraction from the battle against racial injustice in our society at large. While students and academics squabble over whether to include Alice Walker in a freshman reading list, a whole generation of black and Hispanic children is mired in a culture of poverty, dependency, and crime, which our government has neither the honesty nor the will to address appropriately. High school education for many inner-city blacks and Hispanics is affected by this culture as well . Without confronting this issue baldly, and taking the uncomfortable measures to tackle it, the "multicultural" posturings in our colleges are at best the indulgence of an elite, at worst cynically destructive . The real danger is that the "multicultural" orthodoxy is itself a disguise for an indifference, or a particular political attitude, to this greater issue. It whispers in our ears that the barriers of race are unbridgeable; that thought cannot undo them; that education cannot mitigate them; that a liberal government in a liberal society cannot do anything to achieve a more colorblind society; that racism is, indeed, ineradicable. It is the inheritance of liberals to resist this seduction, not only because it is a temptation to intellectual orthodoxy, but also because it is a temptation to political despair.• LETTERS from Santa Fe The university that we defend is a truly subversive institution. Page 5 �L ike most others in the education community, I was shocked by the U.S. Department of Education's announcement on December 11 that postsecondary institutions receiving federal aid could no longer offer scholarships solely on the basis of race. The Department's six-point "clarification" of its policy-released on December 18-raised more questions than it answered, and subsequent commentary offered little clarification. As an educator, and an African American, I take pride in the progress that has been made since I was a college student in the number of minorities going to college. It should be noted for the record that the number of African American men and women attending college has increased markedly over the past decade, as has the number of Hispanic men and women. The scores of African American students on our SAT exams have increased significantly over the past ten years, even as those of white students have remained the same. And the number of minority students taking and doing well in our Advanced Placement courses has skyrocketed. Over the past decade the number of African American and Hispanic men and women graduating from high school has grown even more swiftly than the number going on to college. Unquestionably, one of the reasons for the success achieved with regard to minorities in higher education has been the growing availability of minority scholarships at institutions that are predominantly white. We have found that nearly 700 colleges and universities nationwide have scholarships designated for minorities, and we are currently in the process of gathering even more data on this subject. T hey have them for good, selfinterested reasons as well as for democratic and civic-minded ones. As Donna Shalala, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison has noted, no college or university can any longer call itself great unless its administrators, faculty, programs and students Ii.illy reflect the rich, multicultural diversity of contemporary America. The sad news is that the proportion of African American high school graduates aged 18 to 24 going to college has leveled off. On a percentage basis, it has remained at 28 percent in the decade of the 1980s. M ore ominously, the American Council on Education reports that degree attainment for these groups has declined in recent years, and that the percentage of students attending college from low -income families has also remained unchanged . Donald Stewart is president of the College Board. Page 6 It is my view that, in fact, a ruling of this sort can seriously put in jeopardy the future of our great nation. As my good friend, Lou Harris, told the College Board's national forum two years ago, " by the end of the next decade, our country will have either succeeded or failed on the pivotal issue of how to open the doors of opportunity to minority young people. If we succeed in [making) them creative, thinking workers, as must happen with young whites, then surely we will have created a strongly competitive America that will be the envy of the world. But if we fail that will condemn us to second tier economic status as a nation. M ark it well." Recent comments and proposed legislation have made clear, moreover, it was not the intent of Congress, when it enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to outlaw efforts to increase the distressingly low numbers of minority students in predominantly white colleges and universities nationwide. On a more philosophical note, as the great observer of America, Alexis de Tocqueville, noted, the impulse to address problems through voluntary, private acts is what has set America apart from other nations and allowed so much private energy to flow to the public good. We heard this theme sounded during the last presidential campaign in President Bush ' s 1000 points of light, representing the great American way for meeting social needs. Therefore, the · announcements of the Office of Civil Rights are nothing if not paradoxical. For any policy or action by OCR that would end these programs of minority scholarships would directly contradict both the spirit of de Tocqueville and President Bush, and tie one of America's arms behind its back. Targeted funds, voluntarily given, is how we get things done, whether for the homeless, for AIDS victims, for the environment or for education. More specifically, it would not only undo the great progress we have made in increasing the diversity of students on formerly white campuses, but it would also have a secondary consequence of discouraging potential donors from giving to higher education in general. In closing let me say that if this policy is allowed to stand, the clear message it will send to young minority men and women is that their higher education in predominantly white institutions is a matter of indifference to this nation. Coming after so many years of trying to persuade them that, in fact, the way is open, and that their presence is desirable and desired in the educational community, and necessary for our national social and economic well being, that would be a tragic outcome indeed . • LETTE RS from Santa Fe April 1991 �W hen Assistant Secretary of Education Michael Williams announced in December that awarding scholarships on the basis of race or ethnicity violates civil rights laws, even President Bush treated him like the grinch who stole Christmas. The education establishment was quick to attack Mr. Williams' temerity; one University of Pennsylvania law professor said, "it's obscene to use civil rights laws to support the exclusion of minority students from higher education ." The fact that Mr. Williams is black made him an apostate in his critics' eyes. The reaction to Williams' announcement is a measure of how topsy-turvy the civil rights world has become in the last twenty-five years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 promised to banish invidious distinctions between individuals based on race, national origin, gender or religion; now people who call themselves proponents of civil rights want preferences handed out according to such characteristics. One school of education gives black students a .5 grade point advantage over other students; another university pays black students $550 for maintaining a C average, $1,IOO for anything above a C + average; a university graduate school guarantees full financial support, regardless of need, for any minority student admitted. Students who attend these schools are treated to different standards depending on their race . We used to call that discrimination. There is something inherently patronizing in such attempts at race-based preference, no matter how good the intentions. Why should a black student be rewarded for mediocre academic performance, and what possible incentive does he have to excel if his grades will be artificially inflated simply because of his skin color? Assigning benefits because of race-whether those benefits consist of college admission, financial aid, or better grades-is unfair both to those who are denied such benefits and those who are the intended beneficiaries. Five years ago when my oldest son was a senior in high school he received several unsolicited offers of scholarship aid from colleges to which he had not applied . One private college in Pennsylvania promised him a four-year scholarship for $22,000, without even seeing a copy of his high school Linda Chavez is former executive director of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. She is presently an author and syndicated columnist. April 1991 . transcript. These schools were interested only in his status as a "minority" student. I couldn't help but wonder whether there wasn't some promising non-minority student somewhere in Pennsylvania-perhaps the son or daughter of an out-of-work coal miner-who wouldn't benefit more from such scholarship aid than my son. In the end, my son turned down all the scholarships he was ollered; he knew his high school grades didn't merit them and our family's financial status certainly didn't justify his receiving such largesse. Instead, he decided to attend our state university, whose regular admission standards he could meet and whose tuition he could afford. But he was left feeling uncomfortable nonetheless. He never thought of himself as disadvantaged or as a victim, but these schools assumed that he was both simply because of his ethnicity. Historically, colleges have dispensed scholarships to students who possessed some special talent, usually academic or athletic, or who showed promise but could not afford to pay for college. These criteria still offer the most equitable way to distribute financial assistance.• For the Record: Knowing they would have different views of the matter, I asked both Donald Stewart and Linda Chavez to respond to the issue of race-based scholarships raised recently by the Department of Education. I asked them both to address, in particular, the more philosophical question of the correctness of such scholarships . It is probably right to note here that although nearly 60 percent of St. John's students receive some form of financial aid , the college has no scholarships for which race or minority status is a criterion. Our college catalogue states that all benefits are given " without regard to race, color, creed, sex, or national origin," and we intend to abide by that principle. -J.A . LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 7 �David Bolotin In Defense of the Great Books W We need t,o resist the tide that would take us nowhere but to shallow relativism. e are living in a time when many of the academic heirs of the Western tradition are turning against that tradition. It is not merely that an old philosophy is being challenged by a new philosophy, or an old claim to revelation by a new one. Rather, the very presuppositions of all philosophy and of all Biblical religion are being denied. And they are being denied not in the name of Eastern wisdom, but in the name of history and of cultural diversity. The fundamental presupposition of all philosophy and theology, namely that there is a lasting and comprehensive truth, which the thinking individual is capable of attaining, or at least approaching, is being denied in the name of the view that all "truth" is merely relative to the historical context of the thinker, and that all historical or cultural or even group perspectives are equally true or valid. Even the Western science of nature is coming to be seen as a cultural myth, and a myth of no greater truth and dignity than many others we might choose to fabricate. Now this prejudice, as we know, has been around for a long time. But recently, within the American academic establishment, it has taken on a new and particularly threatening form. It is now no longer just a theoretical claim, but it has taken on an explicitly political cast. Those, like ourselves, who try to keep alive the possibility that there is a non-historical truth, and hence that some perspectives might be closer to the truth, and hence better, than others, no longer hear merely that our views are true only for us, or only in a relative sense. We, or at least the principles of our Program, are now also being attacked by many in the academic establishment as elitist, ethnocentric, logocentric, racist, sexist, religionist, and so forth . Book lists such as ours are now being criticized as a kind of canon, and our attachment to the great books is said to stem from political motives, namely in order to exclude outsiders and to maintain our own priestly power within a larger system of oppression. Finally, more and more of our critics are coming to see the chief, or at least most urgent, task of contemporary education as the political one of eradicating all traces of what they regard as elitist or exclusionist ways of thinking (cf. John Searle, "The Storm over the U niversity,'' The N ew Yo rk R eview of Books, December 6, 1990, p. 34 ff.). Widespread Lowering of Standards Now if this attack should come to prevail among us, our reading list would of course be significantly transformed. But the mere addition of some mediocre or merely good books is not the greatest evil that would ensue. (Indeed, a few of the changes might even be for the better.) Rather, the chief evil is the way that all books would come to be read. The old books would come to be seen chiefly, if not entirely, as steppingstones that have prepared the way for the ideas of the present, which in tum are preparing the way for the ideas of the future, ideas whose merit consists solely in their alleged openness to diversity and their alleged freedom from the sin of being judgmental. The old books would no longer have the power to challenge our students' uncritical acceptance of the contemporary views that inundate their ears day after day. When Plato or Hegel, for instance, argue that the life of the mind is the highest life, we would no longer even consider these arguments as they present themselves, since we would "know" in advance that they could not possibly be true. W e would " know" that the authors are merely expressing a Eurocentric perspective that fails to respect the equal dignity and validity of all lifestyles. The very claim that there are any permanent standards by which individuals, groups, and cultures have to be measured would be met with selfrighteous indignation or passed over with an embarrassed or uncomprehending silence. The lowering of standards that so permeates the contemporary world would be fixed in place by the denial in principle that there are any true standards, except perhaps for standards so empty that no one could conceivably take offense at them. Upholding a Higher Truth It is often said by critics of the traditional curriculum that we need a new kind of education in order to prepare our students for a future in which diverse cultures will become increasingly interdependent. Now if this claim were advanced merely in order to recommend serious study of great books from non-W estern cultures, it would deserve serious consideration. But what is more commonly said, even by the less radical among our critics, is that we need an essentially new curriculum, one that will introduce our students to the new ideas that will dominate the new kind of future. And this argument is deeply mistaken. For even apart from its exaggerated claim to be able to predict the dominant ideas of the future, it forgets that the primary question, for us and for all thinking individuals, is whether those future ideas will be true or truer than those of the past. Not because we stand for the past, but because we stand for the possibility of a higher truth than the so-called truths of culture and history, we need to resist the tide that would take us nowhere but to shallow relativism or to shallow conformity with ideas that present themselves as those of the future.• Davzd Bolotin is a tutor at St. john 's College. Page 8 LETfERS/rom Santa Fe April 199 1 �Donald Kagan An Address to the Class of 1994 adies and gentlemen of the Class of 1994, parents, and friends, greetings and welcome to Yale. To a greater degree than ever before this class is made up of a sampling, not of Connecticut, not of New England, not even of North America, but of all the continents of the world. As I stood a year ago greeting the Class of 1993, I was thrilled by how much Yale (and America) has been enriched in the three centuries since its foundation by the presence and the contribution of the many racial and ethnic groups rarely if ever represented in its early years. The greater diversity among our faculty and student body, as in the American people at large, iS' a source of strength and it should be a source of pride, as well But ethnic and racial diversity its problems. Few governme have been able to comb· internal peace , harmon unity required to achi the greatest success achieved by the sorbed a wide variet government, gener sity, and gradual citizenship, the rul the law. But the over independent tained peace and nations whose cul L tic participation in go unified population, as republic must. From the Middle Ages 1918, the Hapsburg empire 1 job of bringing a great variety ethnic groups into the mainstream of g ment and society, but it never succeeded in dissolving the distinct identities of the different groups, living together in separate communities, speaking their native languages, competing and quarreling with one another, and finally hostile to the dominant ethnic groups. The destruction of the Hapsburg empire and Donald Kagan is Richard M. Colgate Professor of History and Classics at Yale and Dean of Yale College. He is a member of the Board of Visitors and Governors of St. john's College. He is the author of, among other books, a four-volume history of the Pewponnesian War. The present essay, taken from his address to the freshman class at Yale College in September 1990, appeared in the January 1991 issue of Commentary. April 1991 E PLURIBUS UNUM dissolution into smaller units did not end ion, which today threatens the successor states as Czechoslo- s nd ethnicity have erlul forces, for 1istic hopes for a ng peoples and unity of all national and major part in Id wars. Even Soviet Union o peace both in e brought interand all but de- The assault on the chnracter of Western civilization badly distorts history. t had much in common. spoke English, and pracorm of Protestant Christianity. ore long, however, people of many different ethnic, religious, and national origins arrived with different cultural traditions, speaking various languages . Except for the slaves brought from Africa, most came voluntarily, in families and as individuals, usually eager to satisfy desires that could not be met in their former homelands. They swiftly became citizens and, within a generation or so, Americans. In our own time, finally, after too long a delay, African Americans also have achieved freedom, equality before the law, and full citizenship. People of different origins live side by side, often in ethnic communities, but never in enclaves separated from other enclaves. Although some inherit greater advantages than others, all are equal before the law, which does not recognize ethnic or other groups but only LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 9 �individuals. Each person is free to maintain old cultural practices, to abandon them for ones found outside his ethnic group, or to create some mixture or combination of both of them. Our country is not a nation like most others. "Nation" comes from the Latin word for birth: a nation is a group of people of common ancestry, a breed. Chinese, Frenchmen, and Swedes feel a bond that ties them to their compatriots as to a greatly extended family and provides the unity and commitment they need. But Americans ·do not share a common ancestry and a common blood. They and their forebears come from every comer of the earth. What they have in common and what brings them together is a system of laws and beliefs that shaped the establishment of the country, a system developed within the context of Western civilization. It should be obvious, then, that all Americans need to learn about that civilization if we are to understand our country's origins, and share in its heritage, purposes, and character. At present, however, the study of Western civilization in our schools and colleges is under heavy attack. We are told that we should not give a privileged place in the curriculum to the great works of its history and literature. At the extremes of this onslaught the civilization itself, and therefore its study, is attacked for its history of slavery, imperialism, racial prejudice, addiction to war, its exclusion of women and people not of the white race from its rights and privilege. Some criticize the study of W estern civilization as narrow, limiting, arrogant, and discriminatory, asserting that it has little or no value for those of different cultural origins. Others concede the value of the Western heritage but regard it as only one among many, all of which have equal claim to our attention. These attacks are unsound. It is both right and necessary to place Western civilization and the culture to which it has given rise at the center of our studies, and we fail to do so at the peril of our students, our country, and of the hopes for a democratic, liberal society emerging throughout the world today. For Du Bois the wisdom of the West's great writers was valuable for all, and he would not allow himself or others to be deprived of it because of the accident of race. Such was and is the view of the millions of people of both genders and every ethnic group who have personally experienced the value and significance of the Western heritage. The assault on the character of Western civilization badly distorts history. The West's flaws are real enough, but they are common to almost all the civilizations known on any continent at any time in human history. What is remarkable about the Western heritage and what makes it essential are the important ways in which it has departed from the common experience. More than any other it has asserted the claims of the individual against those of the state, limiting the state's power and creating a realm of privacy into which it cannot penetrate. By means of the philosophical, scientific, agricultural, and industrial revolutions that have taken place in the West, human beings have been able to produce and multiply the things needed for life so as to make survival and prosperity possible for ever-increasing numbers, without rapacious wars and at a level that permits dignity and independence. I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I walk arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas where smiling men and welcomin~ women glide in gilded halls. From out of the caves of evening that swing Champion of Democratic Government W estern civilization is the champion of representative democracy as the normal way for human beings to govern themselves, in pl~ce of the different varieties of monarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny that have ruled most of the human race throughout history and rule most of the world today. It has produced the theory and practice of the separation of church and state, thereby protecting each from the other and creating a free and safe place for individual conscience. At its core is a tolerance and respect for diversity unknown in most cultures. One of its most telling characteristics is its encouragement of criticism of itself and its ways. Only in the W est can one imagine a '.11ovement to neglect the culture's own heritage m favor of some other. T he university itself, a specially sh eltered place for such selfexamination, is a W estern phenomenon, only partially assimilated by other cultures. My claim is that most of the sins and errors of W estern civilization are those of the human race. Its special achievements and values however, are gifts to all humanity and ar~ widely seen as such around the world today, although their authorship is rarely acknowl- LET TERS from Santa Fe Apr il 199 1 Universal Wisdom of the West In response to those who claim that Western culture is relevant only to a limited group it is enough to quote W .E. B. Du Bois, the AfricanAmerican intellectual and political leader , writing at the turn of the century in a Jim Crow America: Page 10 between the strong-limbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn or condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil. �edged. People everywhere envy not only its science and technology but also its freedom and popular government and the institutions that make them possible. The roots of these things are to be found uniquely in the experience and ideas of the West. In shon, Western culture and institutions are the most powerful paradigm in the world today. As they increasingly become the objects of emulation by peoples everywhere, their study becomes essential for those of all nations. How odd that Americans should choose this moment to declare Western civilization irrelevant, unnecessary, and even vicious. There is, in fact, great need to make the Western heritage the central and common study in American schools, colleges, and universities today. Happily, student bodies have grown vastly more diverse. Less happily, students are seeing themselves increasingly as pans of groups, distinct from other groups . They often feel pressure to communicate mainly with others like themselves within the group and to pursue intellectual interests that are of no panicular imponance to it. The result that threatens is a series of discrete experiences in college, isolated from one another, segregated and panial. But a liberal education needs to create a challenge to the ideas, habits, and attitudes that students bring with them, so that their vision may be broadened, their knowledge expanded, their understanding deepened. That challenge must come from studies that are unfamiliar, sometimes uncomfonably so, and from a wide variety of fellow students from many different backgrounds, holding different opinions, expressing them freely to one another, and exploring them together. The Common Culture of Change If the students are to educate one another in this way, some pan of their studies must be common, and their natural subject is the experience of which our country is the heir and of which it remains an imponant pan. There is, after all, a common culture in our society, itself various, changing, rich with the contributions of Americans who come or whose ancestors came from every continent in the world, yet recognizably and unmistakably American. At this moment in history an objective observer would have to say that American culture derives chiefly from the experience of Western civilization, and especially from England, whose language and institutions are the most copious springs from which it draws its life. I say this without embarrassment, as an immigrant who arrived here as an infant from Lithuania, a tiny country on the fringe of the West, without any connection with the Anglo-Saxon founders of the United States. Our students will be handicapped in their lives after college if they do not have a broad and deep knowledge of the April 1991 culture in which they live and the roots from which it comes. There are implications, too, for our public life. Constitutional government and democracy are not natural blessings; they are far from common in the world today, and they have been terribly rare in the history of the human race . They are the product of some peculiar developments in the history of Western civilization, and they, too, need to be thoroughly understood by all our citizens if our ways of governing ourselves is to continue and flourish . We must all understand how it works, how it came to be, and how hard it is to sustain. "Hang Together or Hang Separately" Our country was invented and has grown strong by achieving unity out of diversity while respecting the imponance and integrity of the many elements that make it up. The founders chose as a slogan e pluribus unum , which provided a continuing and respected place for the plurality of the various groups that made up the country, but which also emphasized the unity that was essential for the nation ' s well-being. During the revolution that brought us to independence, Benjamin Franklin addressed his colleagues, different from one another in so many ways, yet dependent on one another for survival and success, using a serious pun to make his point . He told them that they must all hang together or assuredly they would all hang separately. That warning still has meaning for Americans today. As our land becomes ever more diverse, the danger of separation, segregation by ethnic group, mutual suspicion, and hostility increases and with it the danger to the national unity which, ironically, is essential to the qualities that attracted its many peoples to this country. Our colleges and universities have a great responsibility to communicate and affirm the value of our common heritage, even as they question it and continue to broaden it with rich new elements. Ladies and gentlemen of the class of 1994, you, too, have imponant responsibilities. Take pride in your families and in the culture they and your forebears have brought to our shores. Learn as much as you can about that culture and share it with all of us. Learn as much as you can of what the panicular cultures of others have to offer. But most imponant, do not fail to learn the great traditions that are the special gifts of that Western civilization which is the main foundation of our university and our country. Do not let our separate heritages draw us apan and build walls between us, but use them to enrich the whole. In that way they may join with our common heritage to teach us, to bring us together as friends, to unite us into a single people seeking common goals, to make a reality of the ideal inherent in the motto ·e pluribus unum. • LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 11 �• Foonded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St . John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile Profile • Cunicuklm: An integrated, four-year, non-elective arts and science program based on reading and discussing, m loosely chronological order, the Great Books of Western Civilization. •Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/faculty ratio is 8: 1. St. John 's is independent and non-sectarian. • Degree Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. • Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55 % men and 45% women, from 30 states and several foreign countries. Fifty-seven percent receive fmancial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. • Aklmni Careers: Education-21%, business-20%, law-10 %, visual and performing arts-9%, medicine-7 % , science and engineering- 7 % , computer science-6 % , writing and publishing-5 % . • Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary Master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program . Ollered on both campuses year-round. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 12 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, April 1991 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, April 1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John’s College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-04 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Bolotin, David, 1944- Kagan, Donald Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1991-04 Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/dda3df645c3587d2c736c41a5f783c1e.pdf 08a45792d190f3006dc3f7f113919f78 PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College-Santa Fe , New Mexico INSIDE BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION page!I, Volume 111 , Issue 2 Education, Equality and Race THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT pages THE AMBIGUOUS LEGACY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION page6 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. ALLAN BAKKE page9 WHY RACIAL PREFERENCE IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL page 15 RACIAL PREFERENCES? SO WHAT? page 18 INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION page 19 COLOR-BLINDED page 22 RACE-TARGETED AID page 23 A LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION page 24 RESPONSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION page 25 RACE, SCHOLARSHIPS AND THE AMERICAN WAY page 26 PODBERESKY V. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK page 28 When has America . not been divided, harassed and harmed by the race issue? The best instinct of the Founders-that all men are created equal-was undercut and submerged by the irrepressible fact of slavery. The lives of thousands given in the service of abolition were forgotten in the years of segregation, black codes and Jim Crow. And now (with the best of intentions we are told) the vision of a nation where race doesn't matter will not materialize-now and in the future people will be helped or hindered because of their complexion. Dwell on race. Count by race. Classify by race. Take race "into account." Reward by race. Harm by race. Worst of all, leadership in this new policy lies not in the ranks of the former agents of ill will but in the one place America has looked to for civility, for enlightenment, and even for wisdom: our colleges. Has the resegregation of America happened anywhere else with the fury-and ·the design-that we see on college campuses? Part of this is imposed on our campuses by threat and fear: The university will be brought to a halt if we do not have a separate Black Student Union; the college will be harassed if we do not increase the funding for minority studies.... Universities are easily pushed around, and perhaps they should be forgiven when, repeatedly, they give in to threats and force. One only wishes they had enough character to admit they gave in to force and not pretend to love and support their intimidators. But part of the evil, the greater part, is the colleges' own doing. Shall we treat people equally, without regard to color? Well, no. Not if, as at one school, you decide to pay for all campus visits, but only for black applicants. Not if, as at another college, you decide to give full financial aid to all minority students, regardless of need. Not if, as many colleges proclaim, you let minority students work less, or take out fewer loans, than non-minority students and make up the difference with college funds . Not if, as at one major university, you decide to enhance the salaries of candidates for faculty positions, so long as they are women and minorities. Not if, in following the lead of the Department of Education, schools decide that racially-based scholarships are perfectly okay; that public money can be given to some people and denied to others simply on the basis of their race. (continued on page 2) �(continued from page 1) Having taught people to judge by race and prefer by race, why are we surprised when they do? page two The philosophical objections to these actions are immense. The moral conscience of most Americans, whether they acted on it or not, has always known that judging, rewarding, denying and promoting by race has no place in decent civil society. Color is an accidental, not essential characteristic; it does not make a person better or more worthy or finer, lesser or debased or degraded. To judge merit on the basis of race is to judge irrationally. Notice how the moral sense rebels at the thought, for example, of a store that charged one race more than another for the same goods; or if the government decided that some people, because of their complexion, could pay less in taxes. Yet, are we doing anything different in our colleges and universities? Today, we are told, schools and colleges can have "race-conscious" and "race-targeted" policies because now there is something afoot more important than racial impartiality: "diversity." So long as it is in the service of campus diversity, virtually any form of racial preference is allowed. (Or, rather, is diversity the means of achieving racial preferencing? Sure is hard to say.) This means, of course, racial preferences in admissions, in faculty hiring and retention, in minority-based scholarships, in reduced loan burdens, and in reduced student work hours but at higher pay-all for preferred groups. Let us not be quick to argue that these policies are wrong because they violate the "rights" of the majority . They are wrong not because of damage they do to majority groups but because of the damage they do to the principle of equality and non-discrimination, a LETTERS from Santa Fe principle that benefits all people. And, as is becoming so painfully clear, the real losers in race-based preferences are often not members of some putative majority, but members of some not-now-preferred minority. My guess is that not long ago, the best educators and administrators in America were wholeheartedly and correctly on the side of nondiscrimination and color-blindness. When we first embraced affirmative action policies, it was as they were originally and rightly conceivedas a way of casting the widest net, of looking here and everywhere, for the finest candidates regardless of race or ethnicity. Unlike today's discriminatory affirmative action, nondiscriminatory affirmative action was a wise and just policy, one that sought to find the best regardless of race. To see how pernicious distinctions and rewards based on race really are, consider the response often given in support of such programs"The university favors children of alumni, it has sports scholarships, it has 'merit' scholarships for academically gifted students. The university consistently classifies students and treats them differently, so why not do the same for minorities?" But why is it that one's moral sense would be indignant, would rebel, if the policy were not "alumni preference," but "alumni preference, as long as they're white," or "sports scholarships, but not for Jews," or "non-Asian merit scholarships." See what a difference race makes? See how categorizing and rewarding by race repels? In America, race matters. Race is the single most divisive fact in our nation. And we lie to ourselves if we say we are doing good when we separate, Volume III, Issu e 2 �reward and punish by race. Not uncommonly, when we discard a great and good principle-in this case the principle of equality and non-discrimination-bad things happen. And on our campuses, bad things are happening with a vengeance. Have racial incidents, or racism itself, ever been higher? Having taught people to judge by race and prefer by race, why are we surprised when they do? " Speaking practically, what Cio we colleges and universities teach when we decide, admit and rewJrd i by race? Have we treated each of our students as responsible individuals, with individual and unique, minds? Or, having judged peoples~ minds and outlooks by their pigmen:, tation, have we taught stu,pepts to categorize and pigeonhole by race? Have we prepared our students the world of work the!y'll' Soon enter? Shall they expectto be hired, promoted or retained on the basis; of color? And, havirig saidi to America for so long, d() nofjudge by race, do not prefer race, now say dwell on race, ' ~~d see how , the spoils of society a~~ ~~visib!e' through race competitiop: Not too long ago we .. yvo(ried about the "two cultures" in the academy-about the gap bet:veen scientists and humanists. But. now there are two new cultures bedeviling education, and the gulf between them is immense: I mean the antagonism between contemporary education and the public. In narrowness of scholarship, in smallness of vision, in our unwillingness to promote or often even to understand civic needs, a large part of the academy sets itself up in conscious opposition to the common sense of the American public. And, in the area of race, we see how far behind the ITT decent moral sense of the American people our schools and colleges can be. Whatever the motive-because it seems easy and currently acceptable, or because everyone's doing it, or because they feel intimidated by threats or epithets-categorizing, judging and rewardihg by race.'is all the rage in higher edu,cation. Buf we onthis campu~ find in gur document~ wdrds th(lt say tJl.a.t .,-:of:,_--:: )[$'; :0-,,;..: :-:k:- ·:,;;,- <l admissio~s, ~PP?~11~1B~!,1ts{c p~oino~· tions, honors; salaries andGaidr-. will R ···· .. , , fr --· " ?~..safried out ')'it~?~t r~g<Jn:I; ~p race, color, sex or <::r.ee9.. Without regar4. Just two littl~ words, })ut two words that teach the best that can teach. ,w;,· «. for of Vo l ume III, I ss u e 2 Agresto f' we ..';J: LETTERS from Santa Fe .; ,, p age thr ee �BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION Brown did not immediately concern itself with higher education. Nevertheless, the core statement of Brown, that in the field of race "separate" cannot mean "equal," has been both the focal point and, now it seems, the point to be avoided in campus discussions on race. -J.A. Excerpted from Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. May 17, 1954. Mr. Chief Justice Warren: Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment-even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not "equal" and cannot be made "equal," and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. * * * * * In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and page four L E TTERS f rom Santa Fe its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws. Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Volum e III, I s sue 2 �THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Excerpted from The Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964. Title VI, Sec. 601 No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Title VII, Sec. 703 (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. * * * * * (j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labormanagement committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any Vo l um e Ill , I ss u e 2 group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area. Title VII, Sec. 704 (b) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by s uch an employment agency, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, s pecification, or discrimina tion based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment. LETTERS from Santa F e No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. pag e fi ve �THE AMBIGUOUS LEGACY OF BROWN V. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION by Diane Ravitch Thus it was that the idea of a color-blind society fell out of fashion almost as soon as it was enacted into law and well before it became part of custom. Those who continue to defend the belief that individuals should not be judged in relation to their race, religion, sex, or national origin sense that they are fighting, at least for the time, a losing battle. p ag e s ix In 1954, the Supreme Court declared in the Brown decision that state-imposed school segregation was unconstitutional and invalidated state laws which classified and assigned children to schools on the basis of their race. Today, the Brown decision is cited as authority for a net_w ork of judicial decisions, laws, and administrative regulations that specifically require institutions to classify people on the basis of their group identity and to deal with them accordingly. How the civil rights movement, the judiciary, and the government moved from the goal of equal treatment for all, regardless of group affiliation, to present practices is one of the most significant trends of the past quarter century. By removing from the states the power to use race to differentiate among their citizens, the Brown decision provided a strong precedent to bar racial discrimination in every realm of civic and public activity. Its coverage was strengthened and extended by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act embodied the fundamental principle that everyone should be considered as an individual without regard to social origin. This ideal a ttra cted the s upport of a broad alliance composed of blacks, liberals, organized labor, Catholics, L ETTERS f ro m Santa F e Jews, and others who perceived that the black cause was the common cause of everyone who wanted to eliminate group bias from American life. The particular genius of the civil rights movement was its successful forging of a coalition led by blacks but far more numerous than blacks alone; at the height of its power, in 1964-65, the coalition was potent enough to win passage of the Civil Rights Act, federal aid to education, the Voting Rights Act, and the antipoverty program. The relatively recent shift in focus from anti-discrimination to group preferences has splintered the civil rights coalition of the 1960s and has changed the nature of civil rights issues. The issues of the 1980s are far more complex than were those of the 1950s and 1960s, when the public could readily understand the denial of the civil and political rights of black people. In 1984, the issues are not capable of generating folk heroes like Rosa Parks, James Meredith, and Autherine Lucy, or charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., or villains like Eugene "Bull" Connor. Police brutality and racially closed primaries were powerful emotional symbols precisely because they presented so little ambiguity; to those concerned about the realization of American democratic ideals, there was only one side to be on. Today, it is by no means simple to sort out the right side and the wrong side of such issues as racial balancing, busing, affirmative action, and quotas, and people of good will of all races and sexes are to be found on different sides of these questions. If one-time allies in the struggle for universalism and equal rights now dis a g r ee, it is not s imply because the issues today are comVo lu me Ill , I ssue 2 �plicated, but also because there is an essential dilemma, which is all too rarely recognized as judicial decisions and bureaucratic regulations reinforce one another: The group-based concepts of the present are in conflict with the historic efforts of the civil rights movement to remove group classifications from public policy. And at the heart of this dilemma is the Brown decision, which exemplified in its history the ideals of the civil rights movement and the transition from "colorblind" to "color-conscious" policies. * * * * * When the Brown decision was announced on May 17, 1954, it was a unanimous victory for the civil rights forces. It struck down the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine of "separate but equal"; it declared that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"; and it ruled that segregation in public education was unconstitutional. It appeared that the grounds for the decision were more sociological than constitutional, which in retrospect seems surprising in light of the solidity of the constitutional argument and the controvertible nature of the sociological evidence. The Court did not, in its Brown decision, declare the Constitution to be color-blind, which explains some of the present day confusion about the meaning of the decision. The decision can be read, as it was then, as removing from the states the power to use race as a factor in assigning children to public schools; and it can be read, as it is now, as a mandate to bring about racial integration in the public schools by taking race into account in making assignments. Volume III, Issue 2 Today the Brown decision is considered the progenitor of a host of color-conscious and group-specific policies. The concept of group rights, as distinct from individual rights, has become commonplace. The decision that was supported to remove from the states the power to assign children to school on the basis of race has become the authority for assigning children to school solely on the basis of race, even where official segregation never existed. One Western school district, which contains 19 variants of the HEW-designated minority groups (blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans), has voluntarily undertaken to maintain a racial and ethnic balance in its schools for both students and teachers. How such efforts grew out of a decision that was sought in order to eliminate group labels from public policy is one of the fascinating paradoxes of our time. For at least the first ten years after the Brown decision was rendered, belief in color-blind policy was the animating force behind the civil rights movement. Not long after Congress passed into law the color-blind principle embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, several trends converged to undermine it. First, white Southern intransigence had effectively preserved the status quo despite the Brown decision. The dismantling of state-segregated school systems was occurring at a snail's pace; by 1964, only two percent of the black students in the Deep South attended schools with white students.... Thus, the nearly complete failure of the white South to comply with the Brown decision or to make any good faith efforts to desegregate created pressures to find some mechanism to bring an end to their resistance to the law of the land. Second, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorized federal officials to cut off federal funds from districts that failed to desegregate their schools. This meant little in 1964, when federal funds for elementary and secondary schools were limited, but it became a powerful weapon to compel desegregation after 1965, when federal aid to education was passed by Congress. Third, just as the federal bureaucracy and the federal judiciary began to abandon the color-blind principle, the black power movement emerged. Black power spokesmen ridiculed the leaders of the civil rights movement as Uncle Toms and accommodationists. It was not their rejection of integration that gave them mass appeal, however, but rather their open advocacy of black self-interest. While civil rights leaders championed policies of non-discrimination, the black advocacy movement demanded black principals, black teachers, specific jobs, here and now, period. How could the civil rights movement, so long as it stood by the color-blind principle, hope to compete with the organizations that sought tangible black gains? Fourth, the color-blind principle lost much of its luster for the civil rights organizations as soon as it was established in law. Once it was a fact, it ceased to be a goal; organizations either generate new goals or become defunct. A new agenda was required, one which was tailored to the pressing economic needs of the black masses. Fifth, some of those who had led the fight against segregation came to the view that color-blindness is an abstract principle with no LETTERS from Santa Fe page seven �power to alter the status quo and no possibility of making up for the effects of past discrimination, either in institutional or in personal terms. Thus it was that the idea of a color-blind society fell out of fashion almost as soon as it was enacted into law and well before it became part of custom. Those who continue to defend the belief that individuals should not be judged in relation to their race, religion, sex, or national origin sense that they are fighting, at least for the time, a losing battle. Those in Washington who write the regulations have apparently decided that social origin and group identity are appropriate grounds by which to determine a citizen's eligibility to participate in governmental programs. This is a turn of events that is not without consequence for American society. We do not have a universalistic civil rights movement in the United States precisely because the only common purpose that could bind dozens of minorities together is the goal of preventing discrimination against all minorities. The fight to ban discrimination, which gathered to its banners a powerful coalition of diverse groups, has been replaced for now by groupism, or every interest group for itself. Blacks demand more for blacks, Hispanics more for Hispanics, women more for women, and so on. Competition, all against all, takes the place of cooperation. In the present atmosphere, the idea of universalism is in retreat, an idea whose time came and went with amazing rapidity. * * * * group members is as uncertain today as it was in 1954. And whether it is possible to achieve an integrated society without distributing jobs and school places on the basis of group identity is equally uncertain. What does seem likely, though, is that the trend towards formalizing group distinctions in public policy has contributed to a sharpening of group consciousness and group conflict. As a people, we are still far from that sense of common humanity to which the civil rights movement appealed; still not a community in which e'1eryone feels responsibility for the wellbeing of his fellow citizen; still unpersuaded that our many separate islands are part of the same mainland. We may yet find that just such a spirit is required to advance a generous and broad sense of the needs and purposes of American society as a whole. + "' l ; Diane Ravitch is/proressbr and education at eottJi:nbi College in'fti~~:Yor~. Civil Rights. * Whether it is possible to treat people as individuals rather than as page eig ht L ETTERS f r om Sa nt a F e Volum e !Ii , I ss u e 2 �UNIVERSITY OF caused by past discrimination-a new and more pervasive position arose: CALIFORNIA V. ALLAN Colleges and their programs and curricula BAKKE can, and perhaps must, take "diversity'' into account; and toward that end racial preferences, once maligned for their injustice, now became constitutionally More than anything else, the Bakke case opened the door for affirmative enshrined when in the service of particular curricular and educational reform. action, for preferential treatment based on race and for minority scholarships. reprinted below much of the central But how it did so remains one of the parts of Powell's position. -J.A. most amazing stories in American jurisprudence. A majority of the court-Powell, Stevens, Burger, Stewart and Rehnquist-rejected the university's affirmative action plan. Four judges- Because of its importance, I have Excerpted from Regents of the University of California, Petitioner, v. Allan Bakke, June 28, 1978. Blackm un, White, Marshall and Brennan-dissented on various grounds, but centering on the belief that the university was engaged in a good faith effort to remedy the evil effects of racism and segregation and that the quotas were benign. Powell wrote an opinion which said that ''the attainment of a diverse student body'' was "a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education," and that race or ethnic background can be viewed as a "plus" in the selection process. Not one other justice thought this analysis constitutionally weighty and none joined Powell in this view. Yet, the four dissenters were happy to agree with Powell's conclusion that, therefore, sometimes race can be used in higher education's policy on admission and rewards. Spurning the argument, they nonetheless accepted the conclusions. And racial preferencing became licit. Though the University of California did not push the notion and no other justice supported it, "diversity" soon became the important-and only necessary-argument for racial preference on campus. Rather than the older, standard argument of the dissentersthat we must remedy the disadvantage Volume III, Issue 2 Mr. Justice Powell: The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971, the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains ... . Over the next two years, the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of "disadvantaged" students in each medical school class. The special program consisted of a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process. The special admissions program operated with a separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups. On the 1974 form the question was whether [candidates] wished to be considered as members of a "minority group," which the medical school apparently viewed as "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians," and "American Indians." If these questions were answered affirmatively, the application was forwarded to the special admissions LETTERS from Santa Fe page nine �committee.... Having passed this initial hurdle, the applicants then were rated by the special committee in a fashion similar to that used by the general admissions committee, except that special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cut-off applied to regular applicants. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50, the prescribed number was eight; in 1973 and 1974, when the class size had doubled to 100, the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled, to 16. goals of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of physicians willing to serve members of minority groups were compelling state interests ... the California court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that "no applicant may be rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as measured by standards applied without regard to race." * * * * * Allan Bakke [respondent] is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School [petitioner] in both 1973 and 1974. In both years, applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages, MCAT scores, and bench mark scores significantly lower than Bakke' s. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Declaring that the university could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the trial court held the challenged program violative of the federal Constitution, the state constitution, and Title VI [of The Civil Rights Act of 1964]. The Supreme Court of California transferred the case directly from the trial court, "because of the importance of the issue involved. " . . . Although the court agreed that the The parties disagree as to the level of judicial scrutiny to be applied to the special admissions program. Petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny, as this inexact term has been applied in our cases . That level of review, petitioner asserts, should be reserved for classifications that disadvantage "discrete and insular minorities." United States v. Carolene Products Co ., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n . 4 (1983). Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the California court correctly rejected the notion that the degree of judicial scrutiny accorded a particular racial or ethnic classification hinges upon membership in a discrete and insular minority and duly recognized that the "rights established [by the Fourteenth Amendment] are personal rights." Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. l, 22 (1948). En route to this crucial battle over the scope of judicial review, the parties fight a sharp preliminary action over the proper characterization of the special admissions program. Petitioner prefers to view it as establishing a "goal" of minority r e presentation in the medical school. Respondent, echoing the courts below, labels it as a racist quota. page t en LETTERS from Santa Fe * * * * * This semantic distinction is beside the point: The special admissions program is undeniably a classification based on race and ethnic background. The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to persons. Its language is explicit: "No state shall ... deny to any person w ithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " It is settled beyond question that the "rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. They are personal rights." The guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal. Nevertheless, petitioner argues that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny to the special admissions programs because white males, such as the respondent, are not a "discrete and insular minority" requiring extraordinary protection from the ma joritarian process. Carolene Products Co., supra, at 152153, n. 4. This rationale, however, has never been invoked in our decisions as a prerequisite to subjecting racial or ethnic distinctions to strict scrutiny. "Distinctions between citizens solely beca use of their ancestr y are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded u pon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi, 320 U.S., at 100. " ... [A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject V o l ume III , I ssu e 2 �them to the most rigid scrutiny." Korematsu, 323 U.S., at 216. The Court has never questioned the validity of those pronouncements. Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination. * * * * * The Court's initial view of the Fourteenth Amendment was that its "one pervading purpose" was "the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly-made freeman and citizen from the oppression of those who had formerly exercised dominion over him." As a nation filled with the stock of many lands, the reach of the Clause was gradually extended to all ethnic groups seeking protection from official discrimination.... The guarantees of equal protection, said the Court in Yick Wo, "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." Although many of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment conceived of its primary function as bridging the vast distance between members of the Negro race and the white "majority," the Amendment itself was framed in universal terms, without reference to color, ethnic origin, or condition of prior servitude. Petitioner urges us to adopt for the first time a more restrictive view of the Equal Protection Clause and hold that discrimination agains t m embers of the white "majority" cannot be suspect if its purpose can be characterized as 'benign." Vo l ume II I, I s sue 2 LETTERS from San ta F e page e l even �* * * * * There are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself. First, it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is in fact benign .... Second, preferential programs may only reinforce common stereotypes holding that certain groups are unable to achieve success without the special protection based on a factor having no relationship to individual worth. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 343 (Douglas, J., dissenting). Third, there is a measure of inequality in forcing innocent persons in respondent's position to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making. By hitching the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause to these transitory considerations, we would be holding, as a constitutional principle, that judicial scrutiny of classifications touching on racial and ethnic background may vary with the ebb and flow of political forces. approved a classification that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent individuals in the absence of judicial, legislative, or administrative findings of constitutional or statutory violations. Hence, the purpose of helping certain groups whom the faculty of the Davis Medical School perceived as victims of "societal discrimination" does not justify a classification that imposes disadvantages upon persons like respondent, who bear no responsibility for whatever harm the beneficiaries of the special admissions program are thought to have suffered. To hold otherwise would be to convert a remedy heretofore reserved for violations of legal rights into a privilege that all institutions throughout the Nation could grant at their pleasure to whatever groups are perceived as victims of societal discrimination. * * * * * If petitioner's purpose is to assure within its student body some specified percentage of a particular group merely because of its race or ethnic origin, such a preferential purpose must be rejected not as insubstantial but as facially invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. The State certainly has a legitimate and substantial interest in ameliorating, or eliminating where feasible, the disabling effects of identified discrimination .. . . [Nonetheless], we have never Petitioner identifies, as another purpose of its program, improving the delivery of health care services to communities currently underserved .. .. But there is virtually no evidence in the record indicating that petitioner's special admissions program is either needed or geared to promote that goal. [A final] goal asserted by petitioner is the attainment of a diverse student body. This clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education. "... 1t is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. ' . . ." The atmosphere of "speculation, experiment and creation" -so essential to the quality of higher page twelv e L E TT ERS from San t a Fe * * * * * education-is widely believed to be promoted by a diverse student body. Even at the graduate level, our tradition and experience lend support to the view that the contribution of diversity is substantial. An otherwise qualified medical student with a particular background-whether it be ethnic, geographic, culturally advantaged or disadvantaged-may bring to a professional school of medicine experiences, outlooks and ideas that enrich the training of its student body and better equip its graduates to render with understanding their vital service to humanity. * * * * * The diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element. Petitioner's special admissions program, focused solely on ethnic diversity, would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity. The experience of other university admissions programs, which take race into account in achieving the educational diversity valued by the First Amendment, demonstrates that the assignment of a fixed number of places to a minority group is not a necessary means toward that end. "In recent years Harvard College has expanded the concept of diversity to include students from disadvantaged economic, racial and ethnic groups. Harvard College now recruits not only Californians or Louisianans but also blacks and Chicanos and other minority students." "In Harvard College admissions Vo lu m e Ill , I s s u e 2 �the Committee has not set target quotas for the number of blacks, or of musicians, football players, physicists or Californians to be admitted in a given year.... [Rather] the Committee, with a number of criteria in mind, pays some attention to distribution among many types and categories of students." In such an admissions program, race and ethnic background may be deemed a "plus" in a particular applicant's file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison with all other candidates for the available seats. The file of a particular black applicant may be examined for his potential contribution to diversity without the factor of race being decisive when compared, for example, with that of an applicant identified as an Italian-American if the latter is thought to exhibit qualities more likely to promote beneficial educational pluralism. This kind of program treats each applicant as an individual in the admissions process. The applicant who loses out on the last available seat to another candidate receiving a "plus" on the basis of ethnic background will not have been foreclosed from all consideration for that seat simply because he was not the right color or had the wrong surname. It would mean only that his combined qualifications, which may have included similar nonobjective factors, did not outweigh those of the other applicant. His qualifications would have been weighed fairly and competitively, and he would have no basis to complain of unequal treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment. * * * * In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court. It tells applicants who are not Negro, Asian, or "Chicano" that they are totally excluded from a specific percentage of the seats in an entering class . .. . [W]hen a state's distribution of benefits or imposition of burden hinges on the color of a person's skin or ancestry, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest. Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. For this reason, that portion of the California court's judgment holding petitioner's special admissions program in valid under the Fourteenth Amendment must be affirmed. * * * * * In enjoining p etitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below have failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin. For this reason, so much of the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed. * Volum e III , I ss u e 2 LETTERS from S anta F e p a ge thir te e n �page fourteen LETTERS from Santa Fe Volume III , Issue 2 �WHY RACIAL PREFERENCE IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL by Car/Cohen This article appeared in Commentary in 1979. Although it focused on the thenpending Weber case, I've tried to excerpt from the piece those arguments that have wider scope. -J.A. So long-lasting and self-perpetuating have been the damages done to the many blacks and others by discrimination that some corrective · steps must be undertaken. .. . [But] in the passion to make social restitution, sensitive and otherwise fairmind ed people have gotten the moral claims of living persons badly confused. [D]eliberately visiting the sins of the fathers upon their innocent sons and grandsons, to the special advantage of persons not connected with the original sinning, is conduct neither lawful nor morally right. To suppose that both the beneficiaries of redress and those who are made to carry its burden are properly identified by race is, to be plain, racism. It is simplistic because, on this view, race by itself-without consideration of the nature or degrees of past injuries, present advantages, or future pains- is sufficient to trigger the preferential device. The mistaken view in question is therefore properly entitled simplistic ethical racism. Injuries are suffered in fact, claims made and burdens carried, by individual persons. Civil society is constituted to protect the rights Vo l um e Ill , I ss u e 2 of the individuals; the sacrifice of fundamental individual rights cannot be justified by the desire to advance the well-being of any ethnic group. Precisely such justification is precluded by the Fourteenth Amendment of our Constitution, whose words-no state "shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"express no mere legalism but a philosophical principle of the deepest importance. Explicating that clause, in a now famous passage, the Supreme Court wrote: "The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights . ... Equal protection of the laws is not advanced through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities" (Shelly v. Kraemer 334 U.S. 1, 22 [1948]). The nature and degree of the injury done to many Americans because they were black or brown or yellow varies greatly from case to case. Some such injuries may justify compensatory advantage now to those injured. But the calculation of who is due what from whom is a very sticky business; compensatory instruments are likely to compound injustice unless the individual circumstances of all involved-those who were originally hurt, those who b enefit now, and those who will bear the cost-are carefully considered. Whateve r compensatory a dvan tag e m ay be g ive n- in employment or elsewhere-it must be given to all and only those who have suffered like injury, without regard to their race. What we may not do, constitutionally or morally, is announce in effect: "No matter that you, X, were innocent and gained no advantage; you are white and L E TT E RS from Santa F e [D]eliberately visiting the sins of the fathers upon their innocent sons and grandsons, to the special advantage of persons not connected with the original sinning, is conduct neither lawful nor morally right. pag e fift ee n �therefore lose points. No matter whether you, Z, were damaged or not; you are black and therefore gain points." If the moral ground for compensatory affirmative action is the redress of injury, the uninjured have no claim to it, and all those individuals of whatever ethnic group who have suffered the injury in question have an equal claim to it. Racially based numerical instruments have this grave and unavoidable defect: they cannot make the morally crucial distinctions between the blameworthy and the blameless, between the deserving and the undeserving. As compensatory devices they are under-inclusive in failing to remedy the same damage when it has been done to persons of the non-favored races; they are over-inclusive in benefiting some in the favored categories who are without claims, often at substantial cost to innocent persons. * * * * * opportunity I affirmative action employer." The very term "affirmative action" has lost its honor and has become, for most, a euphemism for racial preference. Nothing is more indicative of the true spirit of a community than the character of the instruments it permits, and of those it precludes, in advancing public policy. Police surveillance to root out spies, the suppression of speech (radical or conservative) to protect the peace -all such instruments are rejected in a decent society. Civil libertarians wisely insist that we forswear instruments that invade the rights of individuals, even when forswearing proves inconvenient. The use of such instruments is precluded, forbidden not just to evil people but to all people. Preference by race is one of the forbidden instruments. The very high priority given to this exclusionary principle, and its applicability to all including the state itself, marks it as constitutional in the most profound sense. Efforts to cut constitutional corners-however well intentioned corrupt a civil society. The means we use penetrate the ends we achieve; when the instrument is unjust, the outcome will be infected by that injustice. This lesson even civil libertarians have always been relearning. Affirmative steps to eliminate racially discriminatory practices rightly win the assent of all. Affirmative efforts to recruit fairly (whether for on-the-job training programs or for professional schools), affirmative inquiry to determine whether testing is job-related and to ensure that evaluation of performance is not racially infected-in such forms affirmative action is of unquestionable merit. But when, in the name of affirmative action for racial equality, the deliberately unequal treatment of the races is introduced, we suffer a national epidemic of double-speak. Employment advertisements everywhere exhibit this duplicity with an almost ritualized motto: "An equal Defenses of racial preferenceby efforts to reinterpret the law, by confused arguments based on "societal discrimination," by claim of executive order-all collapse. It is important to see why they should collapse. The defenders, conscious of their own righteous pursuit of racial justice, little doubt that the pa ge six t ee n LE T T E R S from S ant a F e * * * * * tools they wish to employ would have the good consequences the) hope for. To question the merit o those tools is for them almost< betrayal of the oppressed in whoSt behalf they claim to battle. In thei1 eyes the conflict is only ove whether they are to be permitted Ii do a good deed-i.e., give prefereno to racial minorities-not whether i is a good deed, or whether its conse quences will be good. Decency of motivation, howeveJ does not insure the goodness of th immediate object, or the goodnes of its consequences. Racial justice i an aim that all share; it is distorte when transformed into formulas fo ethnic proportionality. . . . Federo appellate courts have not bee1 oblivious to the evils that ensue: There are good reasons why the use of racial criteria should be strictly scrutinized and given legal sanction only where a compelling need for remedial action can be shown. ... Government recognition and sanction of racial classifications may be inherently divisive, reinforcing prejudices, confirming perceived differences between the races, and weakening the government's educative role on behalf of equality and neutrality. It may also have unexpected results, such as the development of indicia for placing individuals into different racial categories. Once racial classifications are embedded in the law, their pur· pose may become perverted: a benign preference under certain conditions may shade into malignant preference at other times. Moreover, a racial prefe r e nc e for m e mbe r s of one minority might result in dis· crimination against another Volume III, I ss u e 2 �minority, a higher proportion of whose members had previously enjoyed access to a certain opportunity (Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts Inc. v. Altshuler 490 F. 2d 9, 17-18 [1973]). In this spirit three Federal Circuit Courts have repeatedly refused to approve racial quotas in the absence of proved past discriminatory practice dictating that specific remedy. Racial classifications have insidious long-term results: anger and envy flowing from rewards or penalties based on race; solidification of racial barriers and the encouragement of racial separatism; inappropriate entry of race into unrelated intellectual or economic matters; the indirect sup port of condescension and invidious judgments among ethnic groups-in sum, the promotion of all the conditions that produce racial disharmony and racial disintegration. their target not the culinary opportunities denied, but the immoral character of the ground of their denial. Applicants to a competitive program have a right to evaluation on some set of relevant criteriapast performance, intellectual promise, character, or whateverand if deserving on the basis of those criteria, ought not be deprived of place because of race. * * * * The villain . . . is preference by race. [We have] the moral and constitutional commitment to govern ourselves without preference to any by reason of color, or religion, or national origin. If we undermine that commitment-even though it be in an honest effort to ,do good:;;;we will reap the whirlwind. Carl Cohen is a professor of philosophy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor; anq the a1.1thor of * * * * * All arguments thus far explored incorporate the realization that individuals are indeed injured when disadvantaged solely because of their race.. . . It is callous to minimize the injury done when rights are not respected. When the ground of that disrespect is race, the injury is particularly offensive . Entitlements in themselves minor . .. become matters of grave concern when manipulated for racial reasons. Where one must sit on a bus or go to the toilet understandably becomes a source of rage and an issue of constitutional proportions when the d etermination is made by race. Protests over segregated lunch counters had as Volum e III, I ssue 2 * Demgcrc~cY and of Civil Disobedience. Excerpted trorq "Why Racial Preference is Illegal af)d lfT'lmoral. n Commentary, June 1979. Reprinted with permission. LET TE RS from Santa F e pa ge seven teen �For my part, the matter is simple: I got into law school because I'm black. And I can prove it. As a senior at Stanford, I applied to about a half dozen law schools. Yale, where I would ultimately enroll, came through fairly early with an acceptance. So did all but one of the others. The last school, Harvard, dawdled and dawdled. Finally, toward the end of the admission season, I received a letter of rejection. Then within days, two different Harvard officials and a professor contacted me by telephone to apologize. They were quite frank in their explanation for the "error." I was told by one official that the school had initially rejected me because "we assumed from your record that you were white." (The words have always stuck in my mind, a tantalizing reminder of what is expected of me.) Suddenly coy, he went on to say that the school had obtained "additional information that should have been counted in your favor"-that is, Harvard had discovered the color of my skin. And if I had already made a deposit to confirm my decision to go elsewhere, well, that, I was told, would "not be allowed" to stand in my way should I enroll at Harvard. Naturally, I was insulted by this miracle. Stephen Carter, the white male, was not good enough for the Harvard Law School; Stephen Carter, the black male, not only was good enough, but rated agonized telephone calls urging him to attend. And Stephen Carter, color unknown, must have been white: How else could he have achieved what he did in college? Except that my college achievements were obviously not sufficiently spectacular to merit acceptance had I been white. In other words, my academic record was too good for a black Stanford undergraduate but not good enough for a white Harvard Law student. Because I turned out to be black, however, Harvard was quite happy to scrape me from what it apparently considered the bottom of the barrel. My objective is not to single out Harvard for special criticism; on the contrary, I make no claim that a white student with my record would have been admitted to any of the leading law schools. The insult that I felt came from the pain of being reminded so forcefully that I was good enough for a top law page eighteen LETTERS from Santa Fe RACIAL PREFERENCES? SO WHAT? by Stephen L. Carter Those of us who have graduated from professional school over the past 15 to 20 years and are not white travel a career path that is frequently bumpy with suspicions that we did not earn the right to be where we are. We bristle when others raise what might be called the affirmative action question "Did you get into a school because of a special program?" That prickly sensitivity reveals a rarely mentioned cost of racial preferences. The cost I have in mind is to the psyches of the beneficiaries themselves, who simultaneously want racial preferences to be preserved and to force the world to pretend that no one benefits from them. And therein hangs a tale. * * * * * school only because I happened to be black. * * * * * Naturally, I should not have been insulted at all; that is what racial preferences are for-racial preference. But I was insulted and went off to Yale instead, even though I have now and had then absolutely no reason to imagine that Yale's judgment was based on different criteria than Harvard's. Because Yale is far more selective, the chances are very good that I was admitted at Yale for essentially the same reason that I was admitted at Harvard-the color of my skin made up for evident deficiencies in my academic record. So I am unable to fool myself: Without that leg up, the thumb on the scale, the extra points due to skin color~oose your own metaphor-I would not be where I am today. And I too must be able to say, "So what?" and go on from there. Whatever the pain it might cause, the affirmative action question, whether at Yale more than a decade ago or at Chicago last year, should come as no surprise. And if those of us who have benefited from racial preferences are not prepared to treat the question in a serious manner, to admit to the advantage that we have been given, then we are not after all the beneficiaries of affirmative action: We are its victims. Stephen L. Carter is a professor at Yale Law School. Excerpted from Reflections of an Affinnative Action Baby© 1991. Reprinted with permission from Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Inc. Volume III, Issue 2 �INSIDE AMERICAN EDUCATION by Thomas Sowell Since the 1960s, another category of preferentially admitted students has been added-racial and ethnic minorities. In the controversies which have arisen around the issue of preferential admissions by race or ethnicity, those on both sides of the issue have often argued as if the circumstances-and especially the academic failures-of minority students were unique social phenomena with unique causes. In reality, there is nothing uncommon about a high failure rate among people preferentially admitted to college. This pattern has long been common among college athletes, whether they were white or black. Even a highly privileged group like alumni sons at Harvard, during the era when more than half of those sons who applied were admitted, were disproportionately represented among students who flunked out. In short, preferential admissions tend to lead to substandard academic performance, whether those admitted are privileged or underprivileged. What has been unique about students preferentially admitted by race has been the large numbers involved, the magnitude of the preferences, the magnitude of the hypocrisy, and the magnitude of the academic and social disasters which have followed. "NEW RACISM" AND OLD DOGMATISM Increasing hostility toward blacks and other racial minorities Vo lu me III , I ssue 2 on college campuses has become so widespread that the term "the new racism" has been coined to describe it. For example, a dean at Middlebury College in Vermont reported that for the first time in 19 years, she was now being asked by white students not to assign them black roommates. There have been reports of similar trends in attitudes elsewhere. A professor at the University of California at Berkeley observed: '1've been teaching at U.C. Berkeley now for 18 years and it's only within the last three or four years that I've seen racist graffiti for the first time." Another Berkeley professor, recalling support for the civil rights movement on the campuses of the 1960s and 1970s, commented: "Twenty years later, what have we got? Hate mail and racist talk." Much uglier incidents, including outright violence, have erupted on many campuses where such behavior was unheard of, just a decade or two earlier. At the University of Massachusetts, for example, white students beat up a black student in 1986 and a large mob of whites chased about 20 blacks . A wellknown college guide quotes a Tufts University student as saying, "Many of my friends wouldn't care if they never saw a black person again in their lives." Racism, as such, is not new. What is new are the frequency, the places, and the class of the people involved in an unprecedented escalation of overt racial hostility among middle class young people, on predominantly liberal or radical campuses. Painful and ugly as these episodes a re, they should not be surprising. A n umber of p eople predicted such things many years ago, when colleges' current racial policies began to take shape. They also predicted some of the other bad consequences of those policies. These predictions and warnings were ignored, dismissed, or ridiculed by those who believed the prevailing dogmas on which academic racial policies were based . Now that these predictions are coming true, the dogmatists insist that the only solution is a more intensive application of their dogmas. When the idea of special, preferential admissions for racial and ethnic minorities became an issue during the 1960s, two fundamentally different ways of evaluating such proposals emerged. One approach was to discuss the goals of preferential admissions, such as the benefits assumed to be received by minority students, by the groups from which they came, by the institutions they would attend, and by American society as a whole. This became the prevailing approach, which dominated both intellectual discourse and academic policy-making. Another approach was to ask: What incentives and circumstances were being created-for the minority students, for their fellow students, for college administrators, and for others-and what were the likely consequences of such incentives and circumstances? When the issue was approached in this way, many negative potentials of preferential policies became apparent. However, relatively few people risked moral condemnation by asking such questions in public, so that there was little need for those with a goals-oriented approach to answer them. Now history has answered those questions, and these answers have provided LETTERS from San ta F e p age nin e t ee n PREDICTIONS VERSUS DOGMAS �both abundant and painful confirmation of the original misgivings, based on examining the incentives and constraints of the academic racial policies. The issue is not one of a simple, direct reaction to preferential admissions policy, though that by itself generates considerable resentment. The many academic and emotional ramifications of such policies set in motion complex reactions which pit minority and nonminority students against each other, and generate stresses and reactions among the faculty, administrators, and outside interests. Though many colleges and universities have been caught by surprise and have been unable to cope with the unexpected problems-or have responded in ways which have created new and worse problems-much of what has happened has followed a scenario set forth by critics more than two decades ago, and much of the intervening time has seen a steady building of tensions toward the ugly episodes of recent years, which have now been christened, "the new racism." What was at issue, then and now, is not whether there should be larger or smaller numbers of minority students attending college, but whether preferential admissions policies should be the mechanism for making a college education available to more minority students. There are other ways of increasing the number of minority students-not only in theory, but as a matter of historical fact . Between 1940 and 1947, for example, there was a 64 percent increase in the number of nonwhite students attending postsecondary institutions due to financial aid under the G.I. Bill for veterans returning from World War II. This made a college education available to the black masses for the first time. During a corresponding period of the 1960s-from 1960 to 1967there was a 49 percent increase in the number of black students attending college, but this later increase was often accompanied by preferential admissions policies, while the earlier and larger percentage increase had been accomplished simply through more financial support. The point here is that a substantial increase in minority student enrollment in higher education can be achieved with or without preferential admissions policies. Money is the crucial factor, given the lower incomes of blacks and some other minority groups. The case for preferential admissions policies must therefore stand or fall on its own merits, though the proponents of such policies often argue as if preferential admissions were the only possible way to increase substantially the numbers of minority students in college. Unfortunately, proponents of preferential admissions policies have not only ignored history; they have ignored much of what has happened in the wake of these polices. Both false and true racial incidents reveal something of the atmosphere on college campuses, an atmosphere whose complex crosscurrents derive ultimately from the needless pressures generated by double standards and double talk, both of which poison the atmosphere required for people to get along. As race relations have worsened in the wake of policies designed to make them better, there page tw e nty LETTERS from Santa Fe * * * * has been no rethinking of the original assumptions on which these policies were based. * * * * * The obvious self-serving nature of the usual administrative responses to racial incidents-free speech restrictions, making ethnic studies courses mandatory, larger quotas for minority students and facultyprovide an impetus to new and ever-escalating rounds of double standards and racial backlash. Where will this self-reinforcing spiral end? ... The growing evidences of racial hostility and sporadic outbreaks of violence which we in the United States call "the new racism" may be an early warning that we are heading in the same direction as other countries which have promoted preferences and quotas longer and more strongly. But the prevailing dogmatism among academics suggests that the real meaning of these early warnings may not be understood until long after it is too late. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Excerpted from Inside American Education , New York: Free Press, 1993. Reprinted with permission. V o l ume Ill , I ss u e 2 �Volum e III, Issu e 2 LETT ERS from Santa F e page tw en ty - on e �COLOR-BLINDED by the Editors of The New Republic lished by the Kluge Foundation exclusively for minorities, though the university says that no needy student is denied aid. But it is not clear that any of these students would lose their educational opportunity if purely race-based scholarships were abolished. And it is clear that blacks and Hispanics would continue to be the major beneficiaries of scholarships awarded primarily on the basis of need. Recognizing this, some make a different argument. Richard Rosser, president of the National Association of lndependt:;p.t Colleges and Universities, contends that race-based scholarship,s''are a university's way of saying to minorities, "You are vahied. We want you." But surely th.ere are ways of saying that without restricting scholarships to spt:;cific races. It is hard to argue that a scholarship restricted to blacks can be acceptable if a scholarship restricted to whites is not. On the other hand, university catalogues are full of scholarships based on inherited characteristics unrelated to the merit of the recipients-such as scholarships for children of alumni, or for people from Alaska or Guam, or for the offspring of fire fighters. On the most abstract level of moral reasoning, there is no real difference between these distinctions and the racial ones. But because race is the most dangerous divide in American society, any sort of discrimination on the basis of race carries the potential for damage to the social fabric. America's u gly history of negative discrimination, which is the most powerful argument in favor of "reverse" or "positive" discrimination, is also the most powerful argument against it. The controversy is not only about abstract principles but also about practical public policy, and as such it ought to b e informed by empirical facts. . . . At Penn State, under a program still in effect but about to be modified, all minority students who earn a 2.5 grade point average receive $620 a year, and all who earn a 2.75 average get $1,240, regardless of need. Whites, regardless of need, receive no such bonus. Harvard does not give race-based undergraduate scholarships, but does provide full tuition, room, and board to minority graduate students, regardless of need. Columbia has a $25 million scholarship fund estab- The best [outcome] would be the expansion of federally funded scholarship aid to allow more needy students, regardless of race, to get an education. In practice, this would do at least as much to encourage and support a minority presence at our colleges and universities as racially based scholarships. It would have the added advantage of not provoking the resentment that racial discrimination, whatever its goal, inevitably arouses. The controversy over race-based scholarships is of a familiar kind: in a recessionary climate, people increasingly divide themselves into racial and ethnic teams to fight over dwindling economic and social goods. What is needed is not ever more exquisitely calibrated m easurements of racial and ethnic entitle- pa ge t w e nty - two L ETTE R S from Sa nta F e ment. What is needed is the will to make the whole society both richer and more equitable. We need racial diversity on our campuses, just as we need a diversity of religions, political creeds, artistic talents, and intellectual inclinations. But the encouragement of that diversity should be conditioned by merit and by need, not by racial exclusivity. Excerpted from "Color-Blinded," January 7 & 14, 1991. Reprinted by permission of The New Republic. (c) 1991, The NewRepublic, Inc. =~ * * * * * Vo lum e III, I ss u e 2 �RACE-TARGETED AID Excerpted from a news release on -aid to disadvantaged students, without regard to race or national origin, even if the awards go disproportionately to minority students; race-targeted aid, issued by Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, February 17, 1994. U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley today announced that the department is clarifying the circumstances under which racetargeted financial assistance may be used. "We want the doors to postsecondary education to remain open for minority students," Riley said. "This policy helps to achieve that goal in a manner that is consistent with the law. We have taken into account the recent GAO [General Accounting Office] report, as well as extensive public comments, and developed a policy that will help ensure all students access to higher education." Shortly after taking office, Riley expressed support for colleges and universities that have accepted the challenge of providing diversity on their campuses. The secretary directed his staff to prepare a policy that would be fair to all students, would be based on a study of current scholarship practices, and would guide colleges and universities to successful compliance with the civil rights statutes. The new policy accomplishes all three goals. Riley said his review concluded that colleges can use financial aid to remedy past discrimination and to promote campus diversity without violating federal anti-discrimination laws. Permissible under the final policy guidance: Volume III, Issue 2 -aid awarded on the basis of race or national origin when authorized by a particular federal statute such as the Patricia Roberts Harris Fellowship Program; -aid on the basis of race or national origin to remedy past discrimination; -aid on the basis of race or national origin if it is narrowly tailored to achieve a diverse student body at the college or university; race as an eligibility criterion is a narrowly tailored part of those efforts; (3) historically black colleges and universities may participate in third-party programs for black students that are also open to other students at other institutions. The department expects most colleges that target some of their financial aid to minority students will be able to justify their programs under this guidance. However, if a college or university has a student aid program that cannot be justified, it will have up to two years to bring the program into compliance with Title VI [of The Civil Rights Act of 1964). -aid accepted by a school from private sources and restricted by race or national origin, if used to remedy discrimination or achieve diversity, consistent with the other principles in the guidance. The policy guidance replaces a proposed policy published by the department in December 1991. The major changes are: (1) postsecondary institutions need not wait for a formal finding by a court, legislative body or administrative agency such as OCR before taking steps to remedy their past discrimination; (2) efforts to achieve diversity need not be limited to using race as one among several competitive factors if the institution can justify that using LETTERS from Santa Fe page twenty-three �A LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION St. John's College Santa Fe, New Mexico The President March 22, 1994 What lesson do we teach our students if we say that their color Mr. Richard Riley Secretary of Education United States Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20202-0100 makes them worthy of a benefit-a benefit denied to others because they are a different color? Does this prepare them well for the world of work that they'll soon enter? pa ge tw e nty-four Dear Dick: I was saddened to read about your stand on minority scholarships. Right now, because most of us still believe in a nation where race should be an irrelevant characteristic, most colleges give students money on the basis of need, or need and merit, not on the basis of color. With the blessing your office has given to racial scholarships, I now fear they'll become part of the norm rather than, as now, the great exception. What lesson do we teach our students if we say that their color makes them worthy of a benefit-a benefit denied to others because they are a different color? Does this prepare them well for the world of work that they'll soon enter? Moreover, it puts those of us who proudly say in our college catalogues that everything is "without regard to race, creed, color, sex or national origin" in a very awkward position. Shall we now swallow our principles LETTERS from Santa Fe and act "with regard" to these characteristics? Will we be seen as racist for trying hard not to take race into account? On a practical level, this action will decrease racial diversity in many places. If we stick to our ideals of color-blindness and other colleges and universities "buy" people of color because of their color through their scholarship programs, do you think we can compete on an even ground? The department's actions now have the effect of penalizing colleges for their highmindedness. For ages, the general public has looked to higher education to be a light to society, a leader in helping us reach the public good. Yet now, just as we teach each other to put color aside, to forget about rewarding and punishing on the basis of race, we have colleges and universities saying and doing the opposite: Dwell on race. Reward people on the basis of race. Give them expectations that benefits are due to them because of their race. And take money that was meant to help the poor go to college and give it away on the basis of exactly those kinds of distinctions we hoped to overcome. It is a seriously flawed policy. Sincerely, John Agresto Volum e III, Issu e 2 �RESPONSE FROM THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION United States Department of Education The Secretary April 26, 1994 President John Agresto St. John's College Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 Dear John: Thank you for your thoughtful letter dated March 22, 1994, in which you expressed your views concerning the U.S. Department of Education's (Department) guidance on race-targeted financial aid. I also appreciate your offer to print information on the department's policy in your newsletter. Please feel free to print this letter as a statement of the department' s position. I can assure you that the department carefully considered every aspect of this policy guidance as it was developed, ta king into account the concerns expressed by students, higher education officials, civil rights organizations, and other parties interested in the subject. The department reviewed nearly 600 written comments from the public before issuing the final policy guidance, most of which supported the use of race-targeted financial aid to promote diversity and minority access to postsecondary education. The d epartment also considered the findings made by the General · Accounting Office (GAO) in a Vo lum e JI! , I ss u e 2 report on minority-targeted scholarships released on January 14, 1994. According to the GAO report, racetargeted scholarships constitute a very small percentage of the scholarships awarded to students at postsecondary institutions, but are considered to be an important tool for the recruitment and retention of minority students. The guidance identifies and discusses five principles under which the consideration of race or national origin in the award of financial aid is permissible. The guidance does not require colleges to adopt race-targeted aid programs; it merely states the circumstances under which such programs are permissible under Title VI. These principles apply to financial aid for students of all races and national origin groups. As stated in the guidance, lalso encourage the use by postsecondary institutions of other efforts to recruit and retain minority students, which are not affected by the policy guidance. I understand and appreciate your concerns, and I too look forward to the day when no college will need to consider race in order to provide equal access and a diverse educational environment and experience. Indeed, the department is strongly committed to the goal of ensuring equal access for all students regardless of race, color, or national origin, and has recognized this para mount goal in i ts mission statement. At this point in time, however, I do not believe that we have achieved this important objective. Due to a long history of discrimination and limited access to higher education for many groups of students, I believe that it may still be necessary for colleges to consider LETT E R S from Santa F e race under certain circumstances when awarding financial aid, and (as explained in the legal analysis in the policy guidance) that the law does support this limited consideration. Note also, however, that the policy guidance explicitly calls for periodic reassessment by colleges of their race-targeted financial aid programs to ensure that they are used only when necessary to achieve legally recognized objectives. Thank you again for taking the time to write and for sharing your thoughts with me on this important subject. Yours sincerely, Richard W. Riley page tw e nty - f i ve �RACE, SCHOLARSHIPS AND THE AMERICAN by Lamar Alexander ... the most stubborn barrier of all may be the vel}' notion that our rights and liberties are somehow rooted in groups, not in individuals, so that people should be rewarded or restricted on the basis of race. page twenty-six The Clinton Administration recently ruled that colleges may award scholarships based exclusively on race. It made me think of my late friend Alex Haley, who wrote Roots and helped write The Autobiography of Malcolm X. One of Alex's most wonderful stories was about his father Simon and how he made his way through college. Simon was the only child "wasted" by his sharecropper parents, that is, allowed to graduate from high school rather than work in the fields. After a difficult two years at AT&T College in Greensboro, N.C., Simon found a summer job as a porter on the train between Buffalo and Pittsburgh. Late one night, a man having trouble sleeping rang the bell to request a glass of warm milk. Young Simon brought it. An extended conversation ensued. There was a good tip, but Simon thought nothing more about it. Simon returned to campus reluctantly in the fall. Other students were making fun of his one pair of pants and shoes. It was a struggle to make passing grades without textbooks and while working outside jobs. He was about to give it up. Then word came that the college president wanted to see him. Simon went to the administration office. The president handed him an envelope containing a $500 check, exactly enough to pay for his LETTERS from Santa F e tuition and expenses. The check had come from the man on the train. When I was president of the University of Tennessee, we wanted to commemorate the story of "The Man on the Train" with a Simon P. Haley scholarship. Someone said, "Alex, we'll make it for young black men just like your father." Alex thought for a minute, and then he said "No. The scholarships should be for everybody." I remembered what Alex said when President Bush appointed me U.S. secretary of education in early 1991 and I found on my desk the question: Does Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permit a college receiving federal aid to award or deny scholarships solely on the race of a student? The statutory language seemed clear enough: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." So I said no, college scholarships should be for everybody. Now my successor, Dick Riley, has "straightened out" that decision by ruling that a college may, after all, discriminate on the basis of race. He doesn't mean it this way, but it's an invitation to quotas and it's a mistake. Let's be clear: There is no disagreement about helping needy students. Half of all U.S. college students have a federal grant or loan to help pay for college, almost always based on financial need. Such awards go disproportionately to minorities. What's more, any college president with a warm heart Volume III, Issue 2 �and a little common sense has many other ways under the law to help a deserving student without focusing on his or her skin color. What we don't agree about is whether U.S. national policy should be that it's okay to choose one race over another in the granting of scholarships. I believe that this is wrong. Should, for example, the University of California say to Roosevelt High School seniors in Los Angeles, "We have a scholarship for the Latino, but not for the African-American, one for the Asian student but not for the white student?" The answer to such questions goes straight to the heart of the kind of university that we want. And what kind of country we want. Racial preferences and quotas are almost never a good idea. They're an especially bad idea on college and university campuses, too many of which are bewitched by a cult of enforced diversity that feeds straight into an ugly mood of separatism and resentment. I much prefer-most of us docam puses that attract people of many different backgrounds. But there are ample ways to achieve that result without scholarships based on race. (In fact, it is hard to imagine a student eligible for a race-exclusive scholarship who might not be eligible for some other scholarship based on need, or merit, or upon an effort to create campus diversity or to remedy past discrimination, or even a scholarship that is funded privately or created specifically by federal law. My decision in 1991 pointed out that the law permits all of these options.) Growing up in the South, I understand why many Americans Volum e III , I ss ue 2 feel moved to offer race-based financial aid. I have spent much of my adult life-as college newspaper editor, governor, university president and citizen-creating ways to knock down barriers that closed doors, especially to black Americans. But the most stubborn barrier of all may be the very notion that our rights and liberties are somehow rooted in groups, not in individuals, so that people should be rewarded or restricted on the basis of race. That's not the promise of American life. Abraham Lincoln did not speak of preferences based on race. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that men and women should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Our constitution speaks of equal protection. When we give that up, we give up a great deal. There are too many examples of how quotas become ceilings and how preference for one becomes denial for another. Looking around the world, we can see what happens to societies that become preoccupied with race, ethnicity or group. Simon Haley discovered that, especially in America, education is the best way back toward the front of the line. He graduated first in his class from college and went on to Cornell to pursue his master's degree. He raised children who include an architect, the current chairman of the U.S. Postal Rate Commission, a music teacher, and a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer. We should be trying to create opportunities like Simon's for every young American, regardless of race. Instead, on this as on many other matters, the Clinton Administration is leading the country-with mounting speed and certainty-in exactly LETTERS from Santa F e the wrong direction . This time, they're leading us away from the dream of making one people from many . Instead of bringing us together, they're tugging us apart, inevitably pitting us one against the other. If that is what we are teaching, no wonder so many of our children and grandchildren are doubting the American Dream. It is hard to see the promise of American life if the leaders of our country cannot remember what the promise is. My friend Alex said it best. Opportunities, such as scholarships, should be for everybody. Lamar Alexander has been U.S. secretary of education, president of the University of Tennessee, and governor of Tennessee. Excerpted from "Of race, scholarships and the American way," The Washington Times, Wednesday, March 16, 1994. Reprinted with permission. pag e twenty-s eve n �PODBERESKY V. UNIVERSITY OF denial of Podberesky' s motion for summary judgment, and we remand for entry of judgment in favor of Podberesky. MARYLAND AT COLLEGE PARK Let's end this issue of Letters with the most recent minority-scholarship case, Podberesky v. University of Maryland. In upholding the right of Daniel Podberesky not to be excluded from scholarship competition because of his ethnicity (Hispanic), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit restated and reaffirmed the old American notion that, except in the narrowest of circumstances, "race-neutral solutions" are to be preferred to those that are raceexclusive. Whether this decision will stand remains to be seen. -J.A. Excerpted from Daniel J. Podberesky v. University of Maryland at College Park October 27, 1994. Mr. Widener, Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is whether the University of Maryland at College Park may maintain a separate scholarship program that it voluntarily established for which only AfricanAmerican students are eligible. Because we find that the district court erred in finding that the university had sufficient evidence of present effects of past discrimination to justify the program and in finding that the program is narrowly tailored to serve its stated objectives, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment to the university. We further reverse the district court's p age t wen ty - eig ht L E T TE R S from S anta F e * * * * * As we have said before, "Racial and ethnic distinctions of any sort are inherently suspect and thus call for the most exacting judicial examination." Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 273 (1986) (plurality opinion) (quoting Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 291 (1978) (Powell, J.)). The rationale for this stringent standard is plain. Of all the criteria by which men and women can be judged, the most pernicious is that of race. The injustice of judging human beings by the color of their skin is so apparent that racial classifications cannot be rationalized by the casual invocation of benign remedial aims. City of Richmond v. f.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 500 (1989) . While the inequities and indignities visited by past discrimination are undeniable, the use of race as a reparational device risks perpetuating the very race-consciousness such a remedy purports to overcome. ... It thus remains our constitutional premise that race is an impermissible arbiter of human fortunes." Maryland Troopers Ass'n v. Evans, 993 F. 2d 1072, 1076 (4th Cir. 1993). * * * * * We have established a two-step analysis for determining whether a particular race-conscious remedial V o l u m e III , I ss u e 2 �measure can be sustained under the Constitution: (1) the proponent of the measure must demonstrate a "strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action [is] necessary;" and (2) the remedial measure must be narrowly tailored to meet the remedial goal. * * * * * [W]e disagree with the district court that the first effect, a poor reputation in the African-American community, and the fourth effect, a climate on campus that is perceived as being racially hostile, are sufficient, standing alone, to justify the singlerace Banneker Program. As the district court's opinion makes clear, any poor reputation the university may have in the African-American community is tied solely to knowledge of the university's discrimination before it admitted AfricanAmerican students. There is no doubt that many Maryland residents, as well as som e citizens in other states, know the university's past segregation, and that fact cannot be denied. However, mere knowledge of historical fact is not the kind of present effect that can justify a raceexclusive remedy. If it were otherwise, as long as there are people who have access to history books, there will be programs such as this one. Our d ecisions do not permit such results. The hostile climate effect proffered by the university suffers from another flaw, however. The main support for the university's assertion that the campus climate is hostile to African-American students is contained in a survey of student attitudes and reported results of student focus groups. For an articulated effect to justify the program, Volum e Ill , I ss ue 2 however, there must be a connection between the past discrimination and the effect. . .. The district court appears to have found the connection between the university's previous discriminatory acts and the present attitudes obvious, but we have not so found it. The frequency and regularity of the incidents, as well as claimed instance of backlash to remedial measures, do not necessarily implicate past discrimination on the part of the university, as opposed to present societal discrimination, which the district court implicitly held. When we begin by assuming that every predominately white college or university discriminated in the past, whether or not true, we are no longer talking about the kind of discrimination for which raceconscious remedy may be prescribed. Instead, we are confronting societal discrimination, which cannot be used as a basis for supporting a race-conscious remedy. There is no doubt that racial tensions still exist in American society, including the campuses of our institutions of higher learning. However, these tensions and attitudes are not sufficient ground for employing a raceconscious remedy at the University of Maryland. court found that the statistics showed that African-American students had higher attrition rates than any other identifiable group on campus. * * * * * Even if we assumed that the university had demonstrated that African-Americans were underrepresented at the university and that the higher attrition rate was related to past discrimination, we could not uphold the Banneker Program. It is not narrowly tailored to remedy the under representation and attrition problems. * * * * * We turn next to the two effects that rely on statistical data: under representation of African-American students at the university and low retention and graduation rates for African-American students. The district court found that there was strong evidence of African-American underrepresentation in the university's e nte ring-student classes. With respect to the low retention a nd graduation rates, the district The district court found that the Banneker Program attracted "highachieving black students" to the university, which "directly increases the number of African-Americans who are admitted and likely to stay through graduation. Even more importantly, the Program helps to build a base of strong, supportive alumni, combat racial stereotypes and provide mentors and role models for other African-American students. Continuation of the Program thus serves to enhance [the university's] reputation in the African-American community, increase the number of African-American students w h o might apply to the university, improve the retention rate of those African-American students who are admitted and help ease racial tensions that exist on campus." In sum, the district court found that the Banneker Program is employed by the university as an effective recruiting tool tha t draws highachieving African-Americans to the university. The district court fur- LET TE R S f rom Sa nt a F e page twenty - nine * * * * * �ther noted that the university's "success in curing the vestiges of its past discrimination depends upon it attracting high-achieving AfricanAmericans to the College Park campus." ... If the purpose of the program was to draw only highachieving African-American students to the university, it could not be sustained. High-achievers, whether African-American or not, are not the group against which the university discriminated in the past. * * * * * The district court found the program to be narrowly tailored to increasing representation because an increase in the number of highachieving African-American students would remedy the under representation problem. The district court so found because it reasoned that the Banneker Scholars would serve as mentors and role models for other African-American students, thereby attracting more AfricanAmerican students. The Supreme Court has expressly rejected the role-model theory as a basis for implementing a race-conscious remedy, as do we. We are thus of opinion that, as analyzed by the district court, the program more resembles outright racial balancing than a tailored remedy program. As such, it is not narrowly tailored to remedy past discrimination. In fact, it is not tailored at all. * * * * Program. To the extent that the district court's opinion can be read as having found a connection between the university's poor reputation and hostile environment and the Banneker Program, it is on either a role model theory or a societal discrimination theory, neither of which can be sustained. In addition, there is no connection between the Banneker Program and shared experience with family members, African-American faculty members, or jobs and housing. Even if there is some connection between the two, the university has not made any attempt to show that it has tried, without success, any race:.neutral solutions to the retention 'problem. Thus, the university's choke o(a race-exclusive merit scholarship program as a remedy C:al\;;,ot Be sustained. Because we find that the univ~i!Y has not shown that its prog~q!s and quota goals are narro,~ly tailored, we reverse the di"strist court's grant of summary judgment to the university. We also reverse the district court's denial df Podberesky's summary judgment motion. * The causes of the low retention rates submitted both by Podberesky and the university and found by the district court have little, if anything, to do with the Banne ker pag e t h irty L ETTE R S f r om Santa F e V o l um e Ill , I ssu e 2 �Join people from around the country this summer to read and discuss some of the greatest literature, philosophy and opera of all time. St.John's College Summer Classics is a one-to three-week residential education/vacation Santa Fe, New Mexico opportunity for adults from all backgrounds. Seminars are conducted by members of the faculty each morning from 10 a.m. to noon. In the afternoons and evenings participants explore historic Santa Fe and Northern New Mexico. Conference Services Week One - July 16 - 22 Homer, Iliad Dostoevski, Crime and Punishment Sophocles, The Theban Plays Week Two - July 23 - 29 Opera, Salome, Fanciulla Lincoln Virgil, The Aeneid Week Three - July 30 - August 5 Opera, Salome, Fanciulla Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra Located on 250 acres in the Sangre de Cristo foothills overlooking Santa Fe, the St. John's College campus is a quiet oasis, ideal for conference activities. During the summer months, June to August, the college extends its meeting, housing and dining facilities to offcampus programs. These programs have included national and international educational meetings, music institutes, scientific conferences and special business and legislative workshops. If you would like further information on our conference facilities, or would like to plan your next program with us, please write the director of Conferences and Symposia or call: (505) 984-6024 Fellowships Available For College Faculty St. John' s College is now offering partial fellowships of up to $2900 for summer graduate study, thanks to a major grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Fellowship recipients will attend summer sessions of the St. John's College Graduate Institute in Santa Fe. The fellowships provide the opportunity for college faculty from other institutions to immerse themselves in a great books curriculum and in the St. John's method of teaching. To be eligible, a college must propose at least two faculty members to attend each summer and cover part of the instructional costs. For further information, please contact The Graduate Institute, St. John's College, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599; (505) 984-6082. V olum e III , I ss u e 2 LETT E R S from Sant a F e page th i rty - on e �St. John's College: An independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college. Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western civilization. The program also includes four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty ratio is 8:1. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, Master of Arts in Liberal Studies, Master of Arts in Eastern Classics. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class is made up of 55% men and 45% women, from 37 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact The Graduate Institute in Santa Fe, 505/984-6082 or in Annapolis, 410/626-2541. Graduate Program in Eastern Classics: A three-term course of study in the classic texts of India, China and Japan, leading to the Master of Arts in Eastern Classics. Offered on the Santa Fe campus only. For more information, please contact the Graduate Program in Eastern Classics at 505/984-6083. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED U. S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 32 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Volume 3, Issue 2, 1994 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Volume 3, Issue 2, 1994 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John’s College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ravitch, Diane Cohen, Carl, 1931- Carter, Stephen Alexander, Lamar, 1940- Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_Vol_3_Issue_2_1994 Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/08871d4ba17d05d7b53f08e0712b278a.pdf 618688e91b46fca59f877cee09f19254 PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College-Santa Fe. New Mexico Volume Ill. Issue 1 EDUCATION & DEMOCRACY INSIDE EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA page 2 THE LEARNING OF LIBERTY page 4 EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY page s EDUCATION, CULTURAL RELATIVISM, AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDING page 7 MULTICULTURAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION page 10 MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION: WHY WE NEED IT AND WHY WE WORRY ABOUT IT page 12 THE ENNOBLING OF DEMOCRACY page 14 Everyone by now has heard about the Florida school board that, having been directed by the state to give its students a "multicultural" curriculum, tacked on the requirement that teachers should also be certain to say that America is the best country, now or ever. 1his caused a veritable fire-storm in the media and in academic circles. Such small-mindedness. Such bigotry. Such judgmentalism. Now, this outrage struck me as somewhat odd since the President at a recent D-Day ceremony said much the same fine thing about America. Odd, because had the school board said students should learn the equal worth and dignity of all cultures, or even if they had proclaimed, on the other extreme, the culpability of America for racism, sexism, patriarchy or whatever, we probably would have waited in vain for even a peep from the press or the professors. So this newsletter is about civic education. Schools, especially public schools, were meant to serve a public function - not only to raise up educated future voters but also to help this country persevere and prosper. Among their tasks was teaching the principles, the benefits, and the responsibilities of republican citizenship. For, perhaps more than any other way of life, democracies always need help. Lacking the force of religion or the armies of kings or the respect that comes from ancient traditions on its side, democracy needs the support of education. So, why does it seem that our schools are happy to teach moral and cultural relativism but not civic virtue? Why is it that we seem to teach cynicism about America and its place in the world rather than an appreciation of its principles and achievements? Of course, none of this denies the shortcomings, lapses and wrongs found in our history. (You were all waiting for me to say this-it's become obligatory, and predictable.) All nations have feet of clay. But not all teachers have to be foot-fetishists. And wouldn't it be interesting if teachers took our many faults and helped students figure out which ones are the result of our particular way of life and which are the result of our fallen, common human nature? Or, as a grade school principal I know once announced: "We have to teach a multicultural curriculum. 1his is a good thing. 1his means that our students will see that everywhere, in the whole world, all people are the same: stupid, crooked and bad." One last word on the Florida school board. Perhaps it did the right thing but in a flat-footed way. Perhaps we can be more sophisticated. Should students in their studies see the superiority of democracy over autocracy? Should they see the virtues of liberty and the evils of despotism? Should they compare the benefits of prosperity to the degradation of poverty? Should they have some knowledge of the truth of equality and the error of human subjugation? Should they see that universal education is better than ignorance and superstition? If so, then have them look for that country, now or ever, that most possesses these fine attributes. Since these are surely among the very be't thing,, let oo, then, call thot <0untry "b.,,t." Q.E.:9£' +./ �EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA It cannot be doubted by Alexis de Tocqueville that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to support the democratic republic. That will always be so where the instruction which teaches the mind is not separated from the education which is responsible for mores. page t wo Anyone trying to find out how enlightened the Anglo-Americans are is liable to see the same phenomenon from two different angles. If his attention is concentrated on the learned, he will be astonished how few they are; but if he counts the uneducated, he will think the Americans the most enlightened people in the world. The whole population falls between these two extremes, as I have noted elsewhere. In New England every citizen is instructed in the elements of human knowledge; he is also taught the doctrine and the evidences of his religion; he must know the history of his country and the main features of its Constitution. In Connecticut and Massachusetts you will very seldom find a man whose knowledge of all these things is only superficial, and anybody completely unaware of them is quite an oddity. But what I have just said about New England should not be taken to apply to the whole of the rest of the Union indiscriminately. The farther one goes to the west or the south, the less public education is found. In the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico one may find a certain number of individuals uninstructed in the rudiments of human knowledge, but one would search L ET TER S from Santa Fe in vain through the United States for a single district sunk in complete ignorance. There is a simple reason for this: the peoples of Europe started from darkness and barbarism to advance toward civilization and enlightenment. Their progress has been unequal : some have run ahead, while others have done no more than walk; there are some who have halted and are still sleeping by the roadside. Nothing like that happened in the United States. The Anglo-Americans were completely civilized when they arrived in the land which their descendants occupy; they had no need to learn, it being enough that they should not forget. It is the children of these same Americans who yearly move forward into the wilderness, bringing, as well as their homes, the knowledge they have already acquired and a respect for learning. Education has made them realize the usefulness of enlightenment and put them in a position to pass this enlightenment on to their children. So in the United States, society had no infancy, being born adult. The Americans never use the word "peasant"; the word is unused because the idea is unknown; the ignorance of primitive times, rural simplicity, and rustic villages have not been preserved with them, and they have no idea of the virtues or the vices or the rude habits and the naive graces of a newborn civilization. At the extreme borders of the confederated states, where organized society and the wilderness meet, there is a population of bold adventurers who to escape the poverty threatening them in their fathers' homes, have dared to plunge into V o lume III, I ss u e I �the solitudes of America seeking a new homeland there. As soon as the pioneer reaches his place of refuge, he hastily fells a few trees and builds a log cabin in the forest. Nothing could look more wretched than these isolated dwellings. The traveler approaching one toward evening sees the hearth fire flicker through the chinks in the walls, and at night, when the wind rises, he hears the roof of boughs shake to and fro in the midst of the great forest trees. Who would not suppose that this poor hut sheltered some rude and ignorant folk? But one should not assume any connection between the pioneer and the place that shelters him. All his surroundings are primitive and wild, but he is the product of eighteen centuries of labor and experience. He wears the clothes and talks the language of a town; he is aware of the past, curious about the future, and ready to argue about the present; he is a very civilized man prepared for a time to face life in the forest, plunging into the wildernesses of the New World with his Bible, ax, and newspapers. It is hard to imagine quite how incredibly quickly ideas circulate in these empty spaces. I do not believe that there is so much intellectual activity in the most enlightened and populous districts of France. It cannot be doubted that in the United States the instruction of the people powerfully contributes to support the democratic republic. That will always be so, I think, where the instruction which teaches the mind is not separated from the education which is responsible for mores. But I would not exaggerate this advantage and am very far from thinking, as many people in Europe Volume III, Is s ue 1 do think, that to teach men to read and write is enough to make them good citizens immediately. True enlightenment is in the main born of experience, and if the Americans had not gradually grown accustomed to rule themselves, their literary attainments would not now help them much toward success. I have lived much among the people in the United States and cannot say how much I admire their experience and their good sense. Do not lead an American on to talk about Europe; he will usually show great presumption and a rather foolish pride. He will stick to those general and undefined ideas which, in all countries, are such a comfort to the ignorant. But ask him about his own country and the mist clouding his mind will disperse at once; his thought and his language will become plain, clear, and precise. He will tell you what his rights are and what means he can use to exercise them; he knows the customs that obtain in the political world. You will find that he knows about administrative regulations and is familiar with the mechanism of the LETTERS from Sa nta Fe law. The citizen of the United States has not obtained his practical knowledge and his positive notions from books; his literary education has prepared him to receive them but has not furnished them. It is by taking a share in legislation that the American learns to know the law; it is by governing that he becomes educated about the formalities of government. The great work of society is daily performed before his eyes, and so to say, under his hands. In the United States, education as a whole is directed toward political life; in Europe its main object is preparation for private life, as the citizens' participation in public affairs is too rare an event to be provided for in advance. Looking at the two societies, one finds quite overt signs of these differences. In Europe we often carry the ideas and habits of private life over into public life, and passing suddenly from the family circle to the government of the state, we may frequently be heard discussing the great interests of society in the same way that we talk with our friends. But the Americans almost always carry the habits of public life over into their private lives. With them one finds the idea of a jury in children's games, and parliamentary formalities even in the organization of a banquet. Excerpted from: Democracy in America, Vol. I, 1835. page thr e e �THE LEARNING OF LIBERTY by Lorraine Smith Pangle and Thomas L. Pangle ... we are more and more haunted by the suspicion that our educational theories and institutions have lost sight of the need to perpetuate a lasting core of moral and civic knowledge that is essential to true education for everyone. page four Currently the United States finds itself in a time of grave, ongoing public debate over education. It is not an exaggeration to say that a sense of crisis pervades the contemporary discussion. It seems to us that at the root of the present malaise are not simply concerns over the shortage of funds, or the insufficient number of teachers, or the inadequacies of teacher education, or, more generally, the incompleteness of our knowledge of how to implement the goals of education. The real seriousness of our situation is revealed when we recognize how uncertain Americans have become as to what the proper goals of education are. We offer a wide array of subjects in our schools, and especially in our high schools, as we try to equip the next generation with skills that it may need for careers, many of which---given the uncanny character of technological development-do not yet exist; but we are more and more haunted by the suspicion that our educational theories and institutions have lost sight of the need to perpetuate a lasting core of moral and civic knowledge that is essential to true education for everyone. At the same time, in our attempts to articulate this educational ideal we sense is being forgotten, we become aware that we have great difficulty defining the content of the ideal, and thus the content of the curriculum that deserves to be perpetuated. We try to encourage LETTERS from Santa Fe tolerance and openness to all cultures, yet we wonder with growing uneasiness whether there is not a set of distinctly American, republican principles that children should be taught to believe in. Meanwhile, we find ourselves less and less confident that such principles can in any way be considered as simply and permanently true. We look to the schools to help solve our thorniest social problems, to root out racism and sexism, to reduce teenage pregnancy and venereal disease, to combat the spread of drug abuse, to redress the damages of broken homes. Yet amidst this profusion of programs aimed at specific moral ills, we too often stop short of addressing in a serious and sustained way the more fundamental questions that every conscientious parent and teacher feels must be at the very heart of moral education: What must one do to live well? What rights must children be taught to claim and honor, and what further principles, virtues, or habits do they most need if they are to become productive citizens and good parents? How can we help the young to go beyond fleeting amusements to find lasting and meaningful happiness in life? Excerpted from: The Learning of Liberty. University Press of Kansas, 1993. Reprinted with permission. Volume III, Issue 1 �As the years pass, we become an increasingly diverse people, drawn from many racial, national, linguistic, and religious origins. Our cultural heritage as Americans is as diverse as we are, with multiple sources of vitality and pride. But our political heritage is one-the vision of a common life in liberty, justice, and equality as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution two centuries ago. To protect that vision, Thomas Jefferson prescribed a general education not just for the few but for all citizens, "to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom." A generation later, Alexis de Tocqueville reminded us that our first duty was to "educate democracy." He believed that all politics were but the playing out of the "notions and sentiments" dominant in people. These, he said, are the "real causes of all the rest." Ideas-good and bad-have their consequences in every sphere of a nation's life. We cite de Tocqueville's appeal with a sense of urgency, for we fear that many young Americans are growing up without the education needed to develop a solid commitment to those "notions and sentiments" essential to a democratic form of government. Although all the institutions that shape our private and public lives-family, church, school, government, media-share the responsibility for encouraging democratic values in our children, our focus here is on the nation's schools and their teaching of the social studies and humanities. In singling out the schools, we do not suggest that there was ever a golden age of education for citizenship, somehow lost in recent years. It is reported that in 1943-that patriotic era-fewer than half of surveyed college freshmen could name four points in the Bill of Rights. Our purpose here is not to argue over the past, but only to ask that everyone with a role in schooling now join to work for decisive improvement. Our call for schools to impart to their students the learning necessary for an informed, reasoned allegiance to the ideals of a free society rests on three convictions: First, that democracy is the worthiest form of human governance ever conceived. Second, that we cannot take its survival or its spread---or its perfection in practice-for granted. Indeed, we believe that the great central drama of modern history has been and continues to be the struggle to establish, preserve, and extend democracy-at home and abroad. We know that very much still needs doing to achieve justice and civility in our own society. Abroad, we note that, according to the Freedom House survey of political rights and civil liberties, only one-third of the world's people live under conditions that can be described as free. Third, we are convinced that democracy's survival depends upon our transmitting to each new generation the political vision of liberty and equality that unites us Volume III, Issue 1 LETTERS from Santa Fe I EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY The American Federation of Teachers A Statement of Principles ... we fear that many young Americans are growing up without the education needed to develop a solid commitment to those "notions and sentiments" essential to a democratic form of government. page five �as Americans-and a deep loyalty to the political institutions our founders put together to fulfill that vision. As Jack Beatty reminded us in a New Republic article one Fourth of July, ours is a patriotism "not of blood and soil but of values, and those values are liberal and humane." Such values are neither revealed truths nor natural habits. There is no evidence that we are born with them. Devotion to human dignity and freedom, to equal rights, to social and economic justice, to the rule of law, to civility and truth, to tolerance of diversity, to mutual assistance, to personal and civic responsibility, to selfrestraint and self-respect-all these must be taught and learned and practiced. They cannot be taken for granted or regarded as merely one set of options against which any other may be accepted as equally worthy. Tocqueville meant by the "notions and sentiments" of a people. Education for democracy, then, must extend to education in moral issues, which our eighteenth century founders took very seriously indeed. This is hardly surprising. The basic ideas of liberty, equality, and justice, of civil, political, and economic rights and obligations are all assertions of right and wrong, of moral values. Such principles impel the citizen to make moral choices, repeatedly to decide between right and wrong or, just as often, between one right and another. The authors of the American testament had no trouble distinguishing moral education from religious instruction, and neither should we. The democratic state can take no part in deciding which, if any, church forms its citizens' consciences. But it is absurd to argue that the state, or its schools, cannot be concerned with citizens' ability to tell right from wrong, and to prefer one over the other in all matters that bear upon the common public life. This would be utterly to misunderstand the democratic vision, and the moral seriousness of the choices it demands of us. We regard the study of history as the chief subject in education for democracy, much as Jefferson and other founders of the United States did two centuries ago. In revamping the social studies curriculum, we should start with the obvious: History is not the enemy of the social sciences, but is instead their indispensable source of nourishment, order, and perspective. We aim at nothing less than helping the student to comprehend what is important, not merely to memorize fact and formula. Of all the subjects in the curriculum, history alone affords the perspective that students need to compare themselves realistically with others-in the past and elsewhere on earth-and to think critically, to look behind assertions and appearances, to ask for the "whole story," to judge meaning and value for themselves. History is also the integrative subject, upon which the coherence and usefulness of other subjects depend, especially the social sciences but also much of literature and the arts. We also ask for wider reading and study in the humanities. For we are concerned, again, with values, with every citizen's capacity for judging the moral worth of things. In this, courses in "values clarification" do not get us very far. They either feign neutrality or descend to preachiness. Values and moral integrity are better discovered by students in their reading of history, of literature, of philosophy, and of biography. Values are not "taught," they are encountered, in school and life. The humanities in our schools must not be limited, as they so often are now, to a few brief samples of Good Things, but should embrace as much as possible of the whole range of the best that has been thought and said and created, from the ancient to the most recent. Otherwise, students have little chance to confront the many varied attempts to answer the great questions of life-or even to be aware that such questions exist. The quest for worth and meaning is indispensable to the democratic citizen. The essence of democracy, its reason for being, is constant choice. We choose what the good life is, and how our society-including its schools-may order its priorities so that the good life is possible, according to what we ourselves value most. That is what de "Education for Democracy" is a joint project of the American Federation of Teachers, the Educational Excellence Network and Freedom House. This "Statement of Principles" was published in 1987 by the American Federation of Teachers. Excerpted and reprinted with permission. page six LETTERS from Santa Fe Volume III, Issu e 1 History and the Humanities as the Core of Democratic Education �EDUCATION, CULTURAL RELATIVISM , AND THE AMERICAN FOUNDING by Charles R. Kesler My freshman seminar in American politics always begins with a discussion of the Declaration of Independence. Invariably, there are loads of bright freshmen who know all about it and who can discourse plausibly on the Declaration's roots in the Enlightenment, John Locke's influence on its authors, the economic interests that actuated its signers, and so forth. What these students have trouble with is the most basic question: Is it true? Are men created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights? The question never fails to floor them. After all, it seems impossibly naive. Who would have thunk it, as Pogo might say, that a college professor would ask such a question? "In their [the founders'] opinion, it was true," a freshman will volunteer, finally. When students understand that this revelation is not the end but the beginning of the discussion, their education has begun. It takes a while before students recognize that the really interesting question is precisely whether the proposition at the heart of the Declaration is true or not. It is only the concern with such ultimate questions that justifies paying serious attention to everything else there is to know about the document. Who can blame students for not remembering the dates of the American Revolution, for example if they have been taught not that Volum e III, I s sue 1 the Declaration is "that immortal emblem of humanity" (Lincoln's words), as previous generations learned, but that it is (ho-hum) an eruption of Enlightenment optimism, a footnote to Locke's Second Treatise, or a hostile takeover bid by some greedy colonials? Now I wish to make clear that this is not an indictment of contemporary students. The fault, I am tempted to say, is not in them, nor in their stars, but more likely in the star faculty of their universities. Students today labor under the weight of the accumulated dogmas of the modern academy, superstitions that are crushing the life out of modern education as well as politics-chief among them, something nowadays called "cultural relativism." generation that really can "Value" Judgments claim to be the best and "Relativism" is the notion that all judgments of right and wrong, of noble and base, are relative to the person or persons making them. "Cultural relativism" modifies this definition by suggesting that persons do not in fact, at least regarding the most serious "value" questions, judge relative to themselves alone-as if everyone could create his own "values" out of the depths of his self. Instead, men receive their most important "values" from a larger and more comprehensive authority, from a "culture," which is, as the name suggests, a kind of growth. Accordingly, every culture stands in relation to other cultures as one self does to other selves, each building and dwelling in its own world of meaning. From this fact cultural relativism concludes that all cultures are equal and also, LETTERS from Santa F e To help reclaim our destiny as human beings and as citizens, we need to rediscover the brightest in American history, at least from the moral and political point of view: the founders of the American republic. pag e s even �quite illogically (about which more in a moment), that toleration of all cultures is the appropriate moral policy. This sentiment, of course, forms the basis of students' reluctance to evaluate the Declaration of Independence, not to mention the contrary claims made by Communism and other forms of government. In the ethics of the contemporary academy, passing value judgments on other ways of life or governments is a mistake typically inspired by "ethnocentrism," which means here not the excessive or unjustified love of one's own group, but, in principle, any preference for one's own over others-the assumption being that any preference for one's own is by definition irrational. For all of its talk of openness, what is most characteristic of the contemporary academy is its unwillingness to hear of relativism's alternative. There is a constituency within American universities for "diversity" in virtually every area except this, the vital one. (Republicans also need not apply.) Yet the argument against the radical separation of facts and values must be heard if American education is ever to be able to recapture its self-respect and its purpose. This calls for the reading of great books, as Allan Bloom has argued eloquently, but not merely for the reading of great books. The reading of great books, although necessary, is not sufficient. They must be read with a view to the students' own good as human beings and citizens; they must be read with an eye for something outside the texts. For the aim of education is not simply the imparting of facts or an appreciation of great books, but wisdomuniting theory with practice, knowledge with character, ideas with consequences. The recognition that the pursuit of knowledge, shorn of its moral and political responsibilities, becomes a kind of spiritless game, lies behind the frequent calls in our time for schools to teach "values." Facts are not enough. Students need something more. The demand has been taken up by both liberal and conservative candidates in the last few elections. A movement called "cultural conservatism" has sprung up explicitly to fight cultural relativism by encouraging attention to "values." But to speak of conserving cultural "values" is already to make a crucial, and disabling, concession to the relativist position. "Values" are not "truths," because "values" are by definition subjective. To invoke "absolute values" is to do no more than to announce that one feels particularly strongly about them. That the distinction is not merely verbal may be gathered from cultural conservatism's answer to the pointed question, Why ought we to conserve the "values" of Western civilization? Because "they work," cultural conservatives often reply. To which the relativist may fairly rejoin, "What do you mean, work?" The "values" of cannibals work very well for them. Suppose then that the conservative were to say, "Look, no sane man doubts that the West's traditional values work, inasmuch as they produce today's material prosperity, political freedom, and peace among nations." "But what of those who despise luxury, who hunger for power, who grumble at the peace imposed on them by the will of other nations?" the relativist will respond. "Why shouldn't their values count?" To call men like Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, and Mao "insane," absent a major refinement in cultural conservatism's argument, is simply to say that conservatives do not like such men's "values." It is not to say that they are wrong. And if a skeptic were to add, "Suppose that tomorrow the stock market plunges and a deep depression begins, or that war breaks out on the central front in Europe," what then becomes of those conservative "values" whose only justification was that they used to work? Our forefathers did not claim that the United States was based on such "cultural values." They declared that the new nation was founded on self-evident truths. A self-evident truth is one that contains its own evidence, that packs the evidence for itself within its own terms. The proposition "Man is a rational animal," Aquinas teaches, is such a truth, because he who says "man" has already said, by definition, "rational animal." The predicate is contained in the idea of the subject. "That all men are created equal" is also such a truth, since he who says "men" says "a group of beings each of whom is equally a man." "Created equal" therefore adds nothing to the definition of "all men," but draws attention to what men are not-created so unequal that one man might legitimately rule another without his consent. By knowing what men are, the Declaration argues, we may know how we ought to treat one another. The "is"-created equal and endowed with certain rights- page eight LETTERS from Santa Fe Volume Ill , Issue 1 * * * * * �Sign ing the Declaration of Independence implies the "ought"-that we should institute government, operating with the consent of the governed, to secure men's rights. So far removed from the radical separation of "facts" and "values" is the Declaration, in fact, that it does not feel obliged to use the language of "ought" or "should." It speaks, in its majestic opening section, in straightforward declarative sentences: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary ... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires .. . We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that a mong these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted ... That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends ... ," and so forth. The authors of the Declaration do not suggest that this is the way things ought to be, but that this is how things are. Men are created equal, endowed with rights, and government exists to secure those rights. I do not mean to imply that Jefferson and the others imagined that in most countries such principles and institutions actually existed, nor yet that the leaders of the Revolution did not wish to see civil governments established wherever possible. What I am saying is they understood that the rightness of their principles did not arise from any act of their, or for that matter of any man's, will. The moral imperative contained in those principles arises from nature itself. In sum, the Declaration is a document of natural right, which means that the "is" (nature) and "ought" (right) belong together as two aspects of the same reality. It is of the utmost importance, then, to help raise our own and our young people's sights from the dehumanizing world of cultural relativism. In the quest for educational reform, we would do well to turn not only to the great books, but to the great exemplars of wisdom with which our own country is blessed. To help reclaim our destiny as human beings and as citizens, we need to rediscover the generation that really can claim to be the best and brightest in American history, at least from the moral and political point of view: the founders of the American republic. Volume III , I s s u e 1 LETTERS from S anta Fe pa ge nin e This article appeared in the "Intercollegiate Review," Vol. 24, No. 2, Spring 1989. Excerpted and reprinted with permission. �MULTICULTURAL AND CIVIC EDUCATION Can they IJVe together? by Paul Gagnon Both history and common sense tell us that a just and civil multicultural society is possible only among people with a common liberal vision and with the political sophistication to turn vision into reality. pa g e t e n The answer is, as usual, that it's up to us. Can we keep two ideas in our heads at once? One, that we all (not only schoolchildren) need to understand American diversity and its necessities, foremost of which is liberal democracy? Two, that we need to possess a common vision of democracy and its necessities, of which respect for diversity is one among many? If this truism is not already evident to educators, we are in bigger trouble than a hundred articles could fix. But for the sake of argument, let us assume that most of us realize that in our pluralist society, multicultural and civic education very much need each other, that the health of each depends upon the health of the other. Both history and common sense tell us that a just and civil multicultural society is possible only among people with a common liberal vision and with the political sophistication to turn vision into reality. Let us also assume that we know the difference between multicultural education and Afrocentric, Eurocentric, or any other "centric" indoctrination. The latter are not pluralistic but segregationist, not democratic but elitist and exclusive. They are divisive, and, by disarming Americans for common public discourse, are profoundly reactionary, LE T T E RS from Santa Fe playing into the hands of those who do not believe in democracy, or fear its power to reform itself. Having said this, are we any closer to putting multicultural and civic education into daily practice? Far from it, for as soon as we spell out the real changes required in the curriculum, objections arise on every side from educators who are happy with the status quo, or are resigned to it. Of the many obstacles thrown up by people who talk so much of innovation, two stand out. First is their refusal to accept the much greater time required in the social studies curriculum for serious, historically-centered study of the several diverse cultures and world civilizations at issue, and for an equally serious study of the ideas, the institutions, the successes, and failures of democracy, wherever on earth people have struggled for it. A year each to rush through United States and world history are not enough for either multicultural or civic studies alone, and impossible for both together. The sea-changes required in the American curriculum have been made utterly clear by the Bradley Commission's report, Building a History Curriculum, and by the National Commission on the Social Studies' report, Charting a Course. But both a re opposed by much of the social studies establishment. Where will we ever find the time, they ask. They could begin by looking at other democratic nations, whose curricula include six or seven consecutive years of history, geography, and civics. Mainly this is becau se their students' time and minds are not wasted on "social stew," that flavorless concoction of courses (ranging from Consumer Ed to Futures Learning) supposedly Volume Ill , I ss u e 1 �r injecting American students with instant skills and positive attitudes, especially those students deemed "unready" or "learning resistant," labels too quickly applied according to class or race. If we are to respect all of our students' equal rights to know who we Americans are, who we are becoming, why we think the way we do, and what some healthy alternatives might be, we must allow them the time, in commonly required courses, to learn together a wholly candid historical viewdown to the present and its controversies-of the many people and ideas that have continually transformed American society, of the world civilizations that have shaped us and with whom we must play out the future, and of the adventures of democracy, for good and ill, at home and abroad. This last, however, runs into a second major obstacle at hand. Education in the origins, the evolution, the advances, and defeats of democracy must by its na ture be heavily Western and also d emand great attention to political history. Both, of course, are fiercely out of fashion . We cannot say Western without accusation of Eurocentrism, of slighting the sensibilities of nonEuropean Americans (no matter how Western are their aspirations). We cannot stress liberal democracy without hearing that we are ethnocentric and bent upon indoctrinating the young (no matter that the rest of the world's people, and especially the young, are choosing democracy whenever they can). And we cannot press political history without charges of elitism, of ignoring the "common people" (as if they' d never made political history!) and of oppressing students with the ideas and actions of Dead White European Males. What to do? Since both modern democracy and its most virulent enemies have in fact emerged from the European past, and since-.for reasons admittedly unhappy and unfair-most (not all) of their authors and activists were white males and dead by now, our choices are limited. We can teach it honestly as it is and was, from the ancients to the Nazis, from Locke and Marx to the triumphs and horrors of the twentieth century, as the new, multicultural California framework tries to do. The alternative, to avoid the germs of Eurocentrism, elitism, and the dead, is to drop the subject altogether-or, as in the current New York State Global Studies program, relegate Western civilization to the final quarter of the tenth grade course (an absurdity still not absurd enough to save it from cries of Eurocentrism). Choosing to avoid or water down the political history of the Western world is as reactionary as anti-Western educators can hope to get. By promoting political illiteracy, it disarms the very students whose causes they profess, for knowing political history is the absolute precondition for political sophistication, which in turn is the absolute precondition for free choice and the exercise of political power. Only in the last half-century have we achieved democracy in legal terms, under court laws and court decisions on equality of rights and opportunities for people hitherto excluded. What a betrayal it would be for schools now to undermine their chances to acquire the political sophistication and power they need to extend their still-fragile rights, and to contribute their own strengths to American society. V o lu me III , I ss u e 1 L E TTERS from San ta Fe We may regret that political history is demanding, but political prowess never did come cheap. We may even regret that politics is the only way we can turn our values and hopes into reality. But there it is. Which leads to the final pair of ideas we must keep in our heads at once. Multicultural education relies heavily on social history. Education for democracy relies heavily on political. Ignoring either kind of history guarantees misunderstanding of ourselves and the world. Unless social and political history are well integrated, neither is of much use to us as members of a society that is pluralist and, we hope, democratic at the same time. Can multicultural and civic education live together? Of course, but we have a lot of work to do, and minds to change. This article originally appeared in "Basic Education," Vol. 35, No. 9, May 1991. Reprinted with permission. page e l eve n �We worry about the impact on our children of multiculturalism not because of its evident need and merits, but because of the form it takes. And also because it emerges at a time when so many American educators are still repeating their mantra that there is no particular body of knowledge more worth teaching than any other. They still decry the idea of a required common core of knowledge on three grounds. First, that American culture is now too fragmented . It would be oppressive and insulting, they say, to teach any particular historical past or any particular moral, cultural or intellectual tradition to a multicultural student population. Second, that a common core of academic learning is elitist, and unsuited and unnecessary to "nontraditional" students of minority, immigrant, or working-class status. Third, that the explosion of knowledge and the rapid pace of change in modern society render any particular knowledge obsolete, so schools should focus on teaching how to learn-{)n skills and modes of inquiry-rather than on any given subject matter. Such arguments betray massive intellectual confusion. They ignore the different, distinctive needs of the three basic purposes of education: for work, citizenship and personal culture. Each relates to the others, but each also has its own style and methods . The idea of a common core of learning applies most directly to education for citizenship, where the arguments against it do not hold. Instead, they point to contrary conclusions. First, in our increasingly multicultural society, citizens need to know all they can about our common political heritage-and its mainly Western intellectual, cultural and moral sources-which allows us the freedom to be different from each other, which impels us to respect those differences and to live together in liberty and equality. Second, is a common core of academic subjects elitist? On the contrary, no democratic society would dare fail to offer its children as much as possible of whatever subject matter it saw as necessary for those expected to govern. Nothing has been more elitist than our tracking systems, largely along class, ethnic and racial lines. We have offered equal access to drastically unequal education, to an array of "life adjustment" courses that do nothing for students' development as critical, competent citizens. In the name of free choice, we have played the old game of "different but equal," and left the mass of young people unarmed for public discourse. It is obvious that wherever the curriculum in history, literature and ideas is truncated or optional, schools violate their students' right to know, and democratic education is betrayed. There is something wrong when the learning thought necessary for university-bound LETTERS from Santa Fe Volume III , I ss u e 1 MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION : WHY WE NEED IT AND WHY WE WORRY ABOUT IT by Conway Dorsett First, in our increasingly multicultural society, citizens need to know all they can about our common political heritage-and its mainly Western intellectual, cultural and moral sources-which allows us the freedom to be different from each other, which impels us to respect those differences and to live together in liberty and equality. pa g e twelve �"leaders" is treated as unnecessary for the great number, that sovereign people whose education Jefferson said should be "chiefly historical" so that everyone can "judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom." Finally, there is the oft-cited knowledge "explosion" and rush of change, supposedly making any particular subject matter obsolete, and any curriculum as good as any other. In those studies needed to prepare democratic citizens, that is nonsense. The quicker the pace of change, the higher the flood of "knowledge" and "information," the more critical it will be for all of us to understand the ideas, institutions and events that have shaped us and the world. The more complex our society becomes-the more anxious and troubled-the less obsolete and the more relevant will become the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Lincoln's Second Inaugural, the Atlantic Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And the more needed is the historical and literary knowledge required to understand these visions and to recognize the forces that have nourished, or assaulted, such visions throughout history up to our own time, and across the world. Why do we need all this and a serious multicultural education, too? Alexis d e Tocqueville answered in the 1830s. A diverse and d e mocratic p eople require three attributes. First, extensive knowledge of history and ideas, of politics and economic life. Second, a deep sense of civic morality, of obligation to each other a nd to posterity. Third, a hig h level of political sophistication, the skill of Vo lu me Ill, I ss u e 1 exerting power and making things work. All three are needed. None alone is enough, each alone is futile. Knowledge alone is arid; morality alone is defenseless; sophistication alone is corrosive and corrupting. There is simply no way for Americans to acquire these attributes without an education, both in and out of school, that holds multicultural and civic education in balance, and that respects the needs of the worker, the citizen, and the private person in each of us. It is worth wanting and worth worrying about. This article originally appeared in "Network News and Views, " Vol. XII, No. 3, March 1993. Reprinted with permission. L E TTERS from S anta F e page thi rt ee n �In his 1990 State of the Union Address, President George Bush restated the themes and commitments enunciated at the "Education Summit" he had held a half year before with the governors of the United States. He spoke of expanding programs to prepare disadvantaged preschool children to learn; he set as a goal a sharp increase in the percentage of students who complete high school; he spoke of the need to assess student performance at critical stages in education, in order to make "diplomas mean something"; he called for school discipline. Each of these goals is worthy and was worth stressing. But surely something was missing from this attempt to outline the goals of a proper educational policy. What was striking was how little the president had to say regarding the content of education. What was remarkable was his almost complete silence about which sorts of lessons were or ought to be considered truly important. On only one point was there specificity-and there the clarity was unmistakable: "By the year 2000, U.S. students must be first in the world in math and science achievement." There was indeed a single passing reference, in the context of a call for literacy, to the fact that education must somehow prepare Americans to be citizens. But otherwise the education being discussed might well be regarded as an education aimed simply at the acquisition of the skills needed to work and compete well in a modem, technological world economy. Nothing testifies more vividly to the loss, in American democracy, of clarity about the most important goal of public education in a republican society. I say "the most important goal." For of course the concern for an education that prepares men and women to be effective, useful members of the work force is an essential and even a noble concemif, or insofar as, it is placed in a proper republican perspective. After all, skilled workers can be well-trained slaves. What makes the difference between a welltrained, efficient slave and a free human being? Does not education of a certain kind play an important, even the critical, role in this regard? To this last question, the classical republican tradition delivers a resounding affirmative answer. It is "liberal education" that makes the difference between a free human being and a slave. But what is '1iberal education?" So fluffy and banal has this expression become in our time that we need to exert some effort to recover the original meaning of this "liberal" educational ideal. ... To quote Plato's Athenian Stranger, liberal education is "the education from childhood in virtue, that makes one desire and love to become a perfect citizen who knows how to rule and be ruled with justice" (Laws 643b-644a). Now it is only fair to note that the president's State of the Union Address did, contrary to initial appearances, and unlike the declarations made at the time of the "Education Summit," make room for some substantial and serious reference to liberal education in this classical republican sense. But what LETTERS from Santa Fe Volume Ill, I ss u e 1 THE ENNOBLING OF DEMOCRACY by Thomas Pangle pag e fourteen r �I' I'., is remarkable-and yet so familiar to, and indeed characteristic of, our world-is that the president treated the themes of moral education, not in the context of his discussion of public schooling, but rather in his peroration, where he dwelt on the themes of "faith and family." There the president exhorted grandparents, "our living link to the past," to "tell the story of struggles waged, at home and abroad. Of sacrifices freely made for freedom's sake." He reminded parents that "your children look to you for direction and guidance." "Tell them," he urged, "of faith and family. Tell them we are one nation under God. Teach them that of all the many gifts they can receive, liberty is their most precious legacy. And of all the gifts they can give, the greatest-the greatest is helping others." But as the recent words of President Bush's State of the Union Address indicate, the nation still recognizes the need to communicate to our children a reverence for the past that incorporates us into a society whose freedom is more than the freedom of individuals hermetically sealed into the personal sphere, the present time, the immediate place. There still lives a heritage of civic virtues, virtues of gratitude and of generosity, of struggle at home and abroad, of sacrifice for freedom rather than mere enjoyment of freedom, of faith in the one God whose oneness inspires and helps weld our oneness as a nation. And there still lives the confidence that these virtues can be taught, in part through "telling the story." May it not be time to make a more deliberate and determined effort to make this telling- and, in addition, practices or habits reflecting what Volume III, Issu e 1 has been told-a central part of the curriculum of our public schools? To this kind of suggestion I foresee a powerful objection, coming especially from thoughtful conservatives . What reason is there to suppose that we can entrust so important a task to the teachers of today-whose spirits have been formed in substantial part by a higher education many of whose guiding lights are anything but sympathetic to this kind of rootedness in, and reverence for, republican tradition, patriotism, piety, property rights, and family? Will not the effectual upshot be just more subtle indoctrination in the corrosive intellectual and moral fashions that pervade the academic elite and seep thence through every college classroom? Will not moral education be conveyed through "values clarification," with its hidden agenda of apparent skepticism, actual relativism, and hidden, only semiconscious, but all the more dogmatic, radical egalitarianism and individualism? Will not history be taught in such a way as to debunk or even defame the Founders, and all subsequent leaders who did not rebel against the American tradition as a racist, capitalist, sexist, Eurocentric conspiracy to dominate and exploit the "forgotten of history"? Will private enterprise, will the rootedness of human dignity in private property that has so indelibly marked the American republican tradition, be treated with anything like the respect it deserves? Will not every American war and war hero or ordinary soldier be treated as the veterans of the Vietnam War have generally been treated-pitied, where they are not condemned, their military achievements forgotten, where they are not excoriated? Will LETTERS from Santa F e . . . the nation still recognizes the need to communicate to our children a reverence for the past that incorporates us into a society whose freedom is more than the freedom of individuals hermetically sealed into the personal sphere, the present time, the immediate place. There still lives a heritage of civic virtues, virtues of gratitude and of generosity, of struggle at home and abroad, of sacrifice for freedom rather than mere enjoyment of freedom, of faith in the one God whose oneness inspires and helps weld our oneness as a nation. And there still lives the confidence that these virtues can be taught, in part through "telling the story" pa g e fifteen �not the religious traditions of America be treated as the last gasps of benighted ages and darkened minds? Will the American family and American womanhood be celebrated for the hard and selfabnegating choices they made as they bowed to the stern laws of nature and the harsh edicts of destiny-or will their strength in adversity be seen as the stubbornness of "false consciousness under oppression"? In how many advocates of contemporary feminism do the principles and commitments of a feminist like Emma Willard still live? I cannot offer reassuring answers to these questions. But I think Aristotle is correct in insisting that private and familial moral or religious education lacks the authority to sustain itself without direct public reinforcement: I do not think we can leave things where they are and expect them not to get worse. As is evident even from such superficial indicators as opinion polls, the mass of the American citizenry, and especially those who choose the burdens of parenthood, seem more sensible, more responsible, and wiser in civic matters than the elites who dominate the universities; and teachers in the public schools, since they tend to live among ordinary folk and only spend a few years under the direct tutelage of the higher education establishment, remain somewhere in between. On the whole, I am inclined to think reasonable the hope that primary and secondary schoolteachers are not as alienated from the educational principles I have sketched as is sometimes suggested by the pronouncements of their "spokespeople." At the very least, I think we have to hope that page s ixteen LETTERS from Santa Fe men and women who devote their lives to teaching will be willing to listen to and reflect upon calls for a return to our civic educational heritage, enlarged and enriched by a new infusion of classical republican inspiration. * * * * * In turning to higher education, we are brought face to face with the full complexity and challenge of the idea of liberal education. For while higher education is indeed important as a continuation of, and source of teachers for, the liberal civic education that ought to begin at the lower levels, higher education as we know it in the modern university has other and more direct functions and goals. At its "highest," higher education aims at liberal education in a second sense, a sense that encompasses, but goes beyond, citizenship education. But just what this transcivic goal of higher education might be has become increasingly difficult to articulate in contemporary America. The problem is not simply the steady pressure on the universities to provide very sophisticated vocational preparation and technical scientific expertise. This pressure, after all, is inevitable and by no means altogether improper in the context of modern democracy. We need highly skilled lawyers, engineers, doctors, social workers, and technicians and scientists of all kinds . But to keep the pursuit of technical expertise within its proper bounds, there is required a counterpressure exerted by a reasonably clear articulation of the hierarchy of goals in the modern university. This articulation is the responsibility, above all, of the "humanities," including the more Volume III, Issue 1 �"humane" branches of the social sciences. Unfortunately, however, among the custodians of the humanities in today's universities there reigns profound confusion or despair regarding the very possibility of articulating a clear conception of "humanity" in its most "liberal" or liberated spiritual fulfillment. I suggest we try to recover our bearings by returning, again, to the original, Socratic articulation of liberal education-but now to the transcivic dimension of Socratic liberal education. A liberal education that is truly liberating in the Socratic sense is an education that brings us face to face with disturbing challenges to our deepest and apparently surest moral commitments. It is an education that compels us to rethink our most cherished convictions-to their very roots, thereby to rediscover and refertilize, and, if need be, replant, those roots. The aim of such a probing, if sympathetic, scrutiny of our treasured beliefs is not, of course, to subvert those beliefs; the aim is to transform our beliefs from mere opinions into such grounded moral knowledge as is available to human beings. The knowledge in question is partly inspired by, but is not the same as, the knowledge achieved in the mathematical sciences. It provides us with awareness of the genuine strengths of our principles, precisely by forcing us to deal with the most telling actual and potential challenges to those principles. The aim of dialectical education is to leave the subjectivity of "values" behind, by reenacting for ourselves, accepting or modifying, and therefore making truly our own, the great reasonings, the great choices rooted in argument, that ushered in our modem civilization. This kind of approach to the truth, or what Socrates calls his "human wisdom," is the opposite of all dogmatism. Such human wisdom or understanding always includes some skepticism, even as regards our most precious beliefs, because it always includes an acute awareness of the limits of our knowledge as well as firsthand experience of the power of the arguments that can be mustered against our beliefs. In the present time and place, this means that we need to encounter disquieting critics of democracy, of human rights, of individualism, of toleration, of the free market and economic growth, o f sexual liberation a nd sexual equality, of secularism, of monotheism, of modern science (including everything from atomism to evolution), of creativity, of art conceived of in terms of "the aesthetic." To achieve this sort of bracing confrontation, we cannot possibly rest satisfied with the sorts of challenges that originate in our own age and culture, because what we seek is precisely critics whose spiritual footholds are outside our cave, outside our own time, outside the basic matrix of our moral outlook. Yet we must avoid the temptation of supposing that liberation means losing ourselves in the merely exotic, the strange, the provocative. Our goal is neith er titillation nor escapism nor romanticism. It may h elp a bit to study the silent and deeply mysterious cultural artifacts of alien peoples, or the ways and beliefs of cultures that have no relation to our own; but such study Volume Ill , I ss u e 1 L ETTERS fr o m S a nt a F e * * * * * A liberal education that is truly liberating in the Socratic sense is an education that brings us face to face with disturbing challenges to our deepest and apparently surest moral commitments. It is an education that compels us to rethink our most cherished convictionsto their very roots, thereby to rediscover and refertilize, and, if need be, replant, those roots. page se v e nt ee n �will not suffice as the core of a liberating education. Such artifacts and cultures, however rich, are too distant and inarticulate to provide serious and lucid alternative conceptions of the good that we might find ourselves compelled to embrace and in whose terms we might have to begin to reorient our lives. In short, we seek serious and thoughtful critics whose arguments draw us, and are intended to draw us, into a true dialogue, in which the very meaning and purpose of our lives is at stake. We seek critics who challenge us to the core, compelling us to rethink our own foundations, and eliciting from us some genui ne, if grudging, admiration for the alternative they represent or pose. Now such critics, and such confrontations, are to be found especially through the simultaneous study of two sorts of great books: on the one hand, those, like the ancient Greek and Roman, or the medieval Muslim, Judaic, or Christian books, which elaborate a rich and philosophically well defended non-liberal and non-democratic conception of law, freedom, virtue, beauty, and love; on the other hand, those books that are the most original, the broadest, and the deepest sources of our own scientific, liberal, and democratic worldview. In almost every case, these latter primary sources of our science, religion, art, and morality: for example, in political philosophy, the Federalist Papers and Montesquieu; in philosophy of science, Bacon and Descartes; in theology, Spinoza and Locke; in literature, Defoe and Fielding. And on the other hand, guided by these books that laid down our spiritual foundations, we should bring them into confrontation with the great opposing works and authors against which they directed their epoch-making innovations. The Federalist Papers and Montesquieu speak with severe, if sympathetic, criticism of the classical republics portrayed in Plutarch, Thucydides, and Xenophon; Bacon carries on a continuous argument with Aristotle's anti technological, teleological conception of science and its relation to nature and society; Spinoza and Locke engage in a cautious, but searching, critique of the Bible and its great medieval interpreters like Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas; Defoe's plumbing of the depths of individualism in Robinson Crusoe is partly inspired by, and written in direct and sharp contrast to, Ibn Tufayl's Hayy the Son of Yaqzan . These are, of course, only selected illustrationsstrategic points of entry, if you will, to the sorts of juxtapositions and arguments that would allow us to begin to examine our most basic presuppositions from a radically critical perspective. What are these more profound and abiding issues that ought, in a truly liberal education, to take precedence-if only by remaining, looming, in the background? A beginning or provisional list, culled from the most obvious surface of the great books, would include: pa ge e i g h t ee n LETTERS fr o m Sa nta F e Volu me III , I ss u e 1 own spiritual horizon will be found to have blazed their new path by way of a shattering argument with the previous, and especially the Greco-Roman and biblical, authoritative traditions. For Americans, this implies that we should emphasize, on the one hand, those works that laid down the original stratum of our deepest presuppositions as regards justice, �What are, or should be, the goals of a healthy and decent society? What is freedom? What is excellence or virtue? What constitutes human dignity-is it freedom, or virtue, or the capacity to love? To what extent, and how, should government foster freedom, virtue, love, and dignity? What is love? Who or what is worthy of love? What is friendship, and what is a good friend? What are the relations of love and friendship to civic duty? Do God and divine law exist? If so, or if not, what is implied for the life of the citizen and the human being? What is the relationship between the obligations, the virtues, and the fulfillment of the citizen or statesman, and the obligations, virtues, and fulfillment of the human being simply? What is the moral responsibility or civic obligation of the artist? What is a philosopher, and what is the moral responsibility or civic obligation of the philosopher? And, speaking comprehensively, what are the deepest alternative answers to these questions; how is the debate among these alternatives articulated? Even from this incomplete list, it is obvious that a study of great books cannot be confined to the texts traditionally labeled "works of political theory." The poets, the dramatists, the theologians, the scientists (especially insofar as they have transcended the narrow and artificial limits of so much contemporary science) must also be attended to with painstaking care. The study of great books is necessarily, then, in tension- I would say, in a fruitful and invigorating tension- with the artificially exaggerated boundaries of specialization that so unfortunately sunder the contemporary "university" into a kind of congeries of intellectual V o I u me 111 , I s s u e 1 r ghettos. Among other things, the inclusion of great books in the reading lists of courses compels colorless or self-satisfied technicians and specialists to come into an arena where they must justify-and therefore transcend-their "specialties" in the light of questions that ought to provide the framework and structure for all specialization, within the manifold and dynamic dialectical unity that ought to constitute the "university." Yet, to repeat, I do not mean for one moment to suggest that the pressing concrete issues of contemporary life are to be left behind. Indeed, one of the major purposes of studying politics and society, love and death, religion and science, in the light shed by the classic works is to escape the fashionable academic abstractions of excessively scientistic or "theoretical" social science and literary theory. Truly great books are never abstract, in the sense of abstracting from the gripping questions of human fate and existence. Truly great books vindicate, while enlarging and deepening, the good citizen' s perspective on the issues that really count. Excerpted from: The Ennobling of Democracv. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Reprinted with permission. If anyone's interested, we have back copies of all past issues except the very first. These cover: Political Correctness; Teaching Ethics; "Oneness and Otherness"; Liberal Education; Diversity and Accreditation; Diversity, Multiculturalism and Liberal Education; Business and Liberal Education; Research and Teaching. Just write us. Or call 505/984-6104. Fellowships Available For College Faculty St. John's College is now offering partial fellowships of up to $2900 for summer graduate study, thanks to a major grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Fellowship recipients will attend summer sessions of the St. John's College Graduate Institute in Santa Fe. The fellowships provide the opportunity for college faculty from other institutions to immerse themselves in a great books curriculum and in the St. John's method of teaching. To be eligible, a college must propose at least two faculty members to attend each summer and cover part of the instructional costs. For further information, please contact The Graduate Institute, St. John's College, Santa Fe, NM 87501-4599; (505) 984-6082. LE T TE R S fr om San t a Fe page n in e t een �PROFILE St. John's College: An independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college. Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western civilization. The program also includes four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty ratio is 8:1. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts, Master of Arts in Liberal Studies, Master of Arts in Eastern Classics. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class is made up of 55% men and 45% women, from 37 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact the Graduate Institute in Santa Fe 505/ 984-6082 or in Annapolis 410/626-2541. Graduate Program in Eastern Classics: A three-term course of study in the classic texts of India and China, leading to the Master of Arts in Eastern Classics. Offered on the Santa Fe campus only. For more information please contact the Graduate Program in Eastern Classics at 505/984-6064. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 -4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED U.S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 20 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Volume 3, Issue 1, 1994 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Volume 3, Issue 1, 1994 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John’s College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Pangle, Lorraine Smith Pangle, Thomas L. Kesler, Charles R. Gagnon, Paul Dorsett, Conway Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_Vol_3_Issue_1_1994 Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/64c0dc9b0f843ca997ac03446e6827be.pdf 7ca5190559526272dfc0696e6ffae752 PDF Text Text LETTERSf1iJ11iF~anta ! ',:; / '.-'\ ·~ ' ~~ '.:;~ ST.JOHN'S COLLEGE, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO "$ John Agresto Fe JULY 1991 ~-' " "'~ DITATION DIVERSITY AND AC T he last issue of our Letters talked about the proper What is especially striking in the events of the past year is and improper place of diversity in liberal educathe way in which the notion of diversity can be used as a tion. Parts of the clamor for increased diversity or weapon to refashion the character and makeup of colleges to "multiculturalism" had us concerned. We focused our satisfy a clearly political agenda. worries especially on the political use of curricular diversity Why there should be magic in the word "diversity" is not as a way not of expanding our understanding of the variety immediately obvious. Indeed, curricular "coherence" or of intellectual traditions and insights but as a handy tool for "integrity" would seem to have equal claim to our respect. disarming the traditional liberal arts, rejecting the idea of This would seem especially true when we realize that much Great Books, and belittling the study of Western civilization. of what passes for curricular diversity today seems more We were concerned about a multiculturalism that reduced fashionable and newly orthodox than truly diverse: the all works to, at best, representations of a person's sex, race loudest proponents of diversity hardly ever seem to make and class. And we were concerned that, under th e banner of the case for stricter attention to foreign languages or for diversity, a political agenda was now masquerading as expanded reading of the best that has been thought and educational reform . writte n in other traditions . Nor do they seem to clamor for If the last issue of Letters could be an expanded place for ideas radically accused of be ing overly abstract at odds with the reigning orthodoxy In this issue we leave the world of diversity about this matter, this one cannot. of the bulk of the professorate. as a curricular debate and show what has (Where, for instance, have we seen This issue is about one thing and one been attempted in its name in the life of proponents of diversity saying that thing alone: accreditation. What makes this seemingly sopor- higher education. colleges should hire more veterans or ific topic interesting is that it is a Republicans, or recruit as students fairly pointed example of " diversity more Mormons, or Fundamentalists in action.'' It takes what was previously rather theoretical or practicing Catholics?) and concretizes it. In this issue we leave the world of Rather, diversity-which, on a certain level , is absolutely diversity as a curricular debate and show what has been defensible as a curricular principle-has become code for a attempted in its name in the life of higher education. kind of thorough-going affirmative action program in What is obvious is the degree to which the word higher education, an affirmative action program based not "diversity" has , in the last few years , taken on an aura, a on an expanded attention to intellectual pluralism but an sanctity, that makes otherwise thinking educators fear to expanded attention to issues of race and sex. And that, in question it. Of all the "politically correct" formulations rife brief, explains why college and university administrators in higher education today , "diversity" and "multiculturalhave so hard a time resisting its onslaughts . That is ism" have , simply by the incantation of the words , the why-because of their supposed sins of sexism and power to bulldoze faculties and administrators into immediracism-the traditional liberal arts, the Great Books, and ate and quiet acquiescence . Western civilization are all targets for the proponents of Continued on page 2. 2 Letters to Santa Fe 3 How the Controversy Started 5 Joel Segall: On Academic Quality 6 8 10 Lamar Alexander: THE DIVERSITY CRITERION The Secretary 's CON: PRO: Decision JiVilliam R . Beer StevenS. JiVeiner �LETTER.S .ta·Santa .Fe · Diversity and Accreditation ' .'RELEVANCW '•M:IJST ENDURi;.I~l\1UI:, TI_C{,JLTYf4.LisM "" . '" . ' ··" ,.... ··.. '· .. - "'· .,·; One central notion ·thaf keeps' striking· me is the 4se of the word "relevance." Jt':seemsto n:ie that relevance, when it comest() the serious business of educationin any guise 1 must have durabiliiy, Thpse•who advocate "diversity,'' 'fmulti7cuhur!!Iis£Il,'' •''gencier stu?ies/' and ..''politicaj c.or,rectnes.s" ~re indeed col'rect in sugg¢sting a certain degree of relevance-'narro"Y, re~tricted and stultifying. To tap into the .. greatest minds an~hspirits goes bey.ond narrow. concerns · anci J:as ~he greatest relevance'm terms pf a truly hberaledµcatton., .. i . PeterA. Benoliel 9hairma11 of the Baafd.' ....... , ; ' · ' ' Qµaker ·Chemical·Cdrporation WESTERN CIVILlZAT.I ONCURRICULUM PROVIDES ·. DI~~OMF()!t'!' . .()F Qp~~'I'IO.NS • . E~h .of us h.a~. d\fferept memo,ri~s ofC()liunl)ia College, butfor allbf us a d?minant rec;o~ecti()n· of tJ:ie .•.(;olle~e ., is j ts ' We,stFrll Pi;vilizatiOn c;urnculum-rno~t n9tably, the tw9~ye'l! sequFnce of cou.rses )n qontem- f~;~};"o~i;}1~:iec14~~~~f~r~~d~:gi~~~~e~~~o~~s0~~\f~~~.~tafu~l::· · ~e~: 11ewcoII1ers or:fI1<J.rgip~ized here, th.is extra9rdi11ary cornm9n. curdctiltim" represe11ted ,a gre.at ()pe11ing~ tR t~e "YC>El~. ,l t .becaII1e}~e fi~!Il .~f.se for,.all our 0th.e r ac'tder:mc. andprofess. 1onal trafI1ipg. : .demar:ided ··•·· · . ···•·•··· · the most . . . , yoluIIlbia.Colleg-7 call Jake prid7. ill hctying of alFof t)S, .· r7gardJess of ll.<J.~~g~Ot)f\Cf.c ff call b7 pr()t)d of having made all ' of US· qt)\te ·u11comfoi:t~Ol~-;:..:.~.ncomfohable a{we :ncountered new and unfarriil, iar }de~s 'and as'.: \V~ pq.rsued toge~~r ..<tr:l .. understanding of t~e · estern heritage: . . . . . : \ ..· . . . . <. '? ) • · f ' • • • ••• ; · •• C.olum~ia (;oJ1eg-e di,d Il()r define its academic program on the basis .of i;thni~ity or th~. ~~c.e ?f 'tJlY of gs. It invited u.s all', regardless ofour orig~ns 'tlld. ~ith .foH respect .for otir origins, to joinin ·the common. study,of our;· heritage, ar:id.·to do so with an <ippreci~tion ' thar criticjsqi 'tlld reform .of our.insti.ttitions i~ an jntegral part•ofthe tr<idition we describe as ''Western qiviliiation. '' '' ~ < " < .- •···· ,. • .:' For Colu'rnbia . Cdllege. graduates, ·· the · current d.e bate . on American . climpuses on the merits and die place •pf:Western« CiviH:Z<ition in the . ~b:::s~a1~u;;te· cll~fi~lllu~ r~st see~ . r:n:111~ amusin~, .an.1 ) even · ~ bit Vi <· .• ··" ·' . ·. . :. .!'lo Columbia qoHege alumnus would suggest, on the ba~js o( hispwn education, that a Western Civilization curriculmn 1is ..an .unchangeable 'canon' or anything of the<soh. No Columbia College gradm1te would suggest that a "'core currieulum'•' excludFs the. study of other. cultures or:. the.• contributions· of all :our ..•peoplerorTleast .oLall, th<).t...it ,forecloses the study ofour sins and imperfections. • t .· · '• • .. , } , , ·~ '·.The current: attackS .on the. study of Western . Civilization/.in'. cgl!eges arpund .. the • country and .... even .- in . our .• ..high •schpols.. is · e.~R,ecially; ... incomp~ehensible to those of us frov.i minority groups,wlJ.p wer~ fortµna~e . enough to be educated at Columbia. College• We bii.ve n() 41f~culty ,Jn understanding ··the .-observations·. of . the .p istinguis,h ed histpri<J.n ; J)onald Kagah,•,!:he Dean •o fYale College; that . •.· . ; ., , · ,. \ ,. . . · "at the core .of Western Civilization is .a tolei;anc;i; <ind respect for ,.diversity unknown if1. .µi0 st. cµItures : . Qµe pf it§. most telling char<J.cteristics is ils, eq.c()Ufagement;o( Cfit~cism ofitse_lf and •its ways. Oiily• i11 tpe West cah ()ne imagine . a movement to n~gfoct the q.dtµre 's .O\\'n peritage .in favpr o.f some pther . .The ,u niversityjtself, a . speciajly sheJte~7d . pllict; • for.such self~examination., is a . We.s~7rn phenpfI1epop, · orily .• .. • . . .partially as~imil.(lted in other 1:ul.t1.1r~s . '' ., .. ·. . \ .•. , · ••..• . . . ... ·•. . .·. . . In ~is great tradition.i Colµinbja's 1:u~ri.cutum taughtiP~ slt7~tisi~m 'and .the >co~plexity of ,tP,~ngs, . thereby c~al!e11ging .m~llY . <:Jf. ()0,..f .•.'se~tl~d·' ·assurnptfons. G()lµpi9i<i poJlege pro~19i;d 1 us with the. 11s~()J'hfort of questions,.rather.tJ:l11ntP,e comfort of an.s~ers. Tl,ie College helped each of us .b uild, in .our 9wn ·· \\'aYt· from ation , . res.ts on a lib!'! r31l"' ,. •; ,· :> ···· ~ +·· traditio11 tho4~nps:9fye ql.d " {,,, 1 .lostA.Cabiaryes • " > " ...\' .·· •. 1J,S. DistrictJlldge fortJle · istrictof ·······•<) . ~,. nectic~t ~,· Continuedfrom page 1. diversity and multiculturalism. Now, back to accreditation. Last year, Baruch College of the City University of New York had its accreditation "deferred" by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (a Department of Education recognized regional accrediting agency) for reasons of insufficient diversity. These standards of diversity governing Middle States are reprinted, in part, in the pages that follow. Also reprinted is an article that appeared last May in Black Issues in Higher Education that clearly announced how the Middle States would apply the diversity standard, and an article by the executive director of the Western States Association of Schools and Colleges decreeing that all colleges and universities within its jurisdiction must now have affirmative action policies in place and have as a specific educational outcome an ' ' appreciation of cultural diversity." So far, these are the only two regional accreditors that seem to require collegiate adherence to a diversity standard. Interestingly enough, in April of this year, Lamar Alexander, the new Secretary of Education, deferred recertification of Middle States pending an inquiry into Middle States' use of diversity as a criterion of accreditation . The Secretary's memo and portions of his decision regarding this matter are reprinted within.• L E T T E R S.from San/,(], Fe A quarterly newsletter on higher education Published in January, April, July, and October at St. John's College, Santa Fe. Submit letters or comments to: John Agresto, President St.John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 Telephone (505) 982-3691 FAX (505) 989-9269 Ben Galison, Editor Douglas Jerrold Houston, Design and ProdU£tion Copyright © 199 1 by St. John' s College, Santa Fe. · Excerpted from remarksat:.th:ejohnJ ay ~:ward~ Dinner,,, Columbia Gollege, Ne:w ,.)':ork, March 21, 199•.1. '"'" Page 2 LETTERS from Santa Fe July 1991 �MORE INSTITUTIONS MAY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DIVERSITY THROUGH NEW ACCREDITING EMPHASIS This article, exa:rpt£d from the May 10, 1990 Black Issues in Higher Education, was one of the first w indicat.e that, at least within the Middle States Association, colleges and universities would be held f,o a rigorous stondard of 'diversity ' that would apply t,o its curriculum, the rnak-up of its student body and jaculty, and the cho.racter of its administration and board. -JA. I n the wake of an informal investigation into New York's Baruch Collegewhich has placed the school's accreditation renewal on hold-scholars are debating the extent to which an institution may be held accountable for its failure to attract a nd retain minority faculty and students. One of the buzzwords in higher education circles over the last few years has been "diversity." But when the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools took the unprecedented action of deferring the accreditation of Baruch last month, becau se of its poor record on minority representation, many university leaders were forced to reevaluate their commitment to a multicultural campus. M any education officials say it is only natural that institutions be expected to diversify their campuses, especially considering society's increased minority populations and academia's declining minority representation. Dr. Howard L. Simmons, executive director of the Middle States accrediting group, declined comment on the status of Baruch and said that attention should be focused on the larger issue : the responsibility of all institutions to ensure minority status inhigher education. " When we're talking about equity a nd diversity, it applies to minority involvement in curriculum , faculty and the board of trustees," Simmons said . " An institution has the responsibility to provide services that cater to the diverse, special needs of its students. And it's not just a matter of bringing them in and making programs available-not just access, but success. " Simmons said it is only sensible that accrediting agencies begin to measure an institution' s record in determining its ability to provide quality education. "There is no better agency to deal with this. W e deal with July 1991 everything else," he said. " How can curriculum have integrity if you leave out references of large contributions from different groups?" He said that many educators hide behind "the spectre of academic freedom" in avoiding the diversity issue. ' ' They may have a r ight to teach, but they also have a responsibility to teach the truth," he said. Andrew V. Stevenson, second vice president of the board of the Association of the Collegiate Business Schools and Programs, said that the Middle States' decision exemplifies an "appropriate" use of the accrediting process. " I think what Middle States did was a step in the right direction," Stevenson said. "It's the beginning of the kind of accountability that is going to be necessary for this nation to come to grips with the realization that unless it is willing to declare a national emergency, we are all going to suffer . The accrediting process can facilitate institutional focus on the issue of recruitment and retention of minorities by assessing the standards by which the institution will be accredited." Stevenson , however , is not willing to endorse the concept of withholding accreditation, but rather of postponing it until satisfactory recruitment and retention progress h as been made. "I'm not sure accreditation can be withheld on these grounds, but it certainly can be provided on a conditional basis until such time that satisfactory evidence can be provided," he said. Dr. D avid Reyes-Guerra, executive director of the Accrediting Board for En gineering and Technology, said, " I would support the nption of having racial recruitment and retention as criteria for accreditation . I would suppo rt moving the profession in that direction. '' But officials at some accrediting agencies q uestion the fairness of penalizing institutions for low minority representation. They argue that factors outside of an institution' s control often make it virtually impossible to hire minorities or to attract students of color. William Laidlaw, executive vice president for the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) said that because there are so few minority faculty "They may have a nght to teach but they also have a responsibility to teach the truth. )) -Howard L. Simmons Executive Director, Middle States Association Continued on page 4. LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 3 �Joel Segall Continuedfrom page 3. members to go around, enforcing such a mandate would prove difficult. "There are 270 accredited schools of business," he said. "Ifwe made requiring minority faculty members a criterion, too many schools would never be accredited.'' Laidlaw said that in 1989, of the 696 doctorates awarded in business only 2.2% were received by blacks; . 7 were given to Hispanics; and none was given to Native Americans . Moreover, he said, there were 5,370 U.S . citizens enrolled in business doctoral programs, and only 2. 9 of those were black, 1 % Hispanic and .1 % Native American. "You can see from those numbers that there are not that many ,' ' he said. Much more can be accomplished by encouraging universities to sponsor summer institutes and other initiatives that acquaint minority juniors and seniors with doctoral programs, such as the six-week program established by AACSB, Laidlaw said. "If you try to legislate, you don't always get the best and the brightest. That's the difference between the old affirmative action progra ms and the more sophisticated a pproach of valuing diversity, ' ' he said . Mark Dugan, assistant director of the accrediting commission of the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools, also took umbrage with Middle States' tactics. He said that the focus should be on "whether students are getting what they ca me to the university for and not on the color of the faculty and administrators. I don't think anyone cares what color they are if they are doing the job. If you have poor instructors, they're not going to help retention. The key is having qualified people.'' But Simmons argues that quality comes in all colors, and he also discounted claims that certain regions-particularly rural a reas-are not able to attract qualified minorities. "In most cases, that's an avoidance tactic," Simmons said. " It's ridiculous. That's like saying that all Black Americans like to be concentrated in the same place . The bottom line is, they don't want to be in those places. " With Middle States' action stirring deb ate throughout the higher education community, observers nationwide are speculating about the long-term role that accrediting agencies will play in enhancing diversity. Bu t most agree that whatever the impact, Middle States is to be commended for raising the issue to a new level of discussion . • Page 4 LETTERS f rom Santa Fe WHEN ACADEMIC Joel Segall was president of Baruch College during its review for accreditation. He resigned that position last year, after Middle States Association deferred its accreditation. This piece is excerpted from an October 29, 1990 op-ed, reprinted with permission of the Wall Streetjournal © 1991 Dow Jones & Company, Inc., All Rights Reserved. -].A . I t is hard to decide whether higher education has entered a new era of McCarthyism or a Kafkaesque trial process: McCarthyism because the label of racism is liberally and generously applied with as little recourse available to the victim institution as in the days when a label of communist was enough to smear the victim for long periods: a Kafkaesque trial process because the institutions are not made aware of explicit charges nor are they presented with evidence. What is more horrifying is that colleges across the country are quick to accommodate to the demands of those who would call them racist if the demands were not met. At issue here is the interjection of racial considerations into official assessments of the worth of a college. Traditionally, accrediting agencies were concerned primarily with " academic quality, '' which involved such matters as library holdings, faculty output, and research and teaching programs. Some accrediting agencies, particularly the tougher ones, have quite explicit requirements-including the percentage of student credit hours taught by full-time faculty, the percentage of faculty holding doctorates, and the substance of course offerings. But these are changing times. The Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, in pursuit of something its executive director calls "social justice," has introduced into the accreditation process criteria concerning racial balance and harmony. Most other regional accrediting associations are following suit. On the basis of the new, nonspecific criteria, Middle States this M a rch deferred its decision on reaccreditation of Baruch College of the City University of New York for almost three months. The major shortcomings Middle States found at Baruch were ''the paucity of minority representation on the faculty and in the administration" and low student retention rates. But what constitutes "paucity?" July 1991 �QUALITY IS BESIDE THE POINT Minority members constitute more than 18% of Baruch's full-time faculty, which is higher than the average for senior colleges in City University, much higher than for all colleges in the U .S., and very much higher than for all colleges in New York state. Is ''paucity'' gone if we can go to 20 % , 30 % ? Apparently, there exists a minimum quota in the mind of Middle States, and Baruch has not yet reached it . What Middle States wants is more. No matter that barely 3.5% of new doctorates in all disciplines go to blacks, a high proportion of whom will not choose academic life, or that an even smaller percentage go to Hispanics. And no matter that just about every college in the country is searching for minority faculty. Now, we must have more or accreditation is in jeopardy . Similarly with retention rates . Baruch's retention rates may be, as Middle States says, ''particularly among Black and Hispanics students . . . worse than at many comparable institutions, '' but logic alone requires that if the rates are worse than at "many comparable institutions" they must also be better than at "many comparable institutions." In fact, Baruch's six-year retention rates for regularly admitted black students are at about 40 % , which is the same as for City University and exceeds the national average for four-year public colleges. For Hispanic students, retention rates (at about 32 %) are considerably lower. What is the right or the adequate retention rate? Middle States does not say and has refused to consider the statistical data. The new criteria have little to do with academic quality . The report of a follow-up visit by a special team representing Middle States came to the following conclusion: From the team's perspective, Baruch College has been, and remains, an excellent academic institution. We believe that the problems surrounding the reaccreditation process can be attributed primarily to two factors: 1. Baruch College has emphasized traditional academic values without exhibiting equal concern for the values of social justice and equity critical to serving working people in a multicultural urban environment. 2. Baruch College took the recommendations contained in the evaluation. team's report less seriously than it should have, given the serious nature of the criticisms. In fairness, communications from Middle States' representaJuly 1991 tives during the reaccreditation process contributed to shaping the institution's initial reaction to the evaluation team's report. So there it is. In pursuit of academic excellence, we do just fine; in pursuit of social justice-whatever is meant by that undefined phrase-we do poorly. As a consequence, our reaccreditation was deferred and not restored until July . This is not a trivial matter. People do not always distinguish between deferral and denial, and the reputation of the college has been impaired . Because the matter was widely covered in the press, fund-raising efforts have been impeded, the value of the Baruch degree called into question, and residual anxiety exists among students, parents and prospective applicants. Damage control required that we present a program to Middle States designed to secure reaccreditation. We have presented such a program and the college will carry it out. That program was treated by the press as a cave-in to Middle States, which it was, and a confession that Baruch had some racist tinge, which it does not. There remains, however, a fundamental problem raised by the change in Middle States' criteria. When colleges are called on to depart from normal academic standards to solve societal problems, they are being asked to do something they are not equipped to do, and are diverted from what I persist in believing is their main job, the pursuit of academic excellence. This tinkering with recognized academic standards to try to solve the problems of society at large can only damage the college and diminish the value of the degree. That, in turn, will harm the career prospects of precisely those people the college should benefit most. By now it must be clear that I find Middle States' criteria offensive, even disastrous. And yet they carry the banner of "social justice," which I understand to be, roughly, egalitarianism . And what that means, I suppose, is equal outcomes: minority students must be graduated at about the same rates as non-minorities and minority faculty must reflect the demographic profile of the student body or, perhaps, the city or some as-yet-unidentified base . What we are left with is something like a quota system with the quotas not yet specified, but higher than current numbers imply. And that, I submit, is no way to run an accrediting agency. Or a college . • LETTERS.from Santa Fe Page 5 �UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THE SECRETARY April 11, 1991 MEMORANDUM 'lb: The Natlon&l Adv1sary CommittBe On Aoaredit.&tlon And Instltut1onal Eligl.b1l.11\V From: L&ma1' Alexander I am enclosing a copy of my decision accepting your recommendation that I not grant Middle States Association's recognition petition until you have had the opportunity to further review how Middle States has applied its "diversity" standards. Until your inquiry is completed and I reach a final decision on Middle States' renewal petition, Middle States will of course continue to be included on the Secretary's published list of recognized accredited agencies. I can understand your concern that the Middle States Association may have exceeded the appropriate role of a Department-recognized regional accrediting agency by deferring the accreditation of Baruch College of the City University of New York and the Westminster Theological Seminary. Apparently there was no question about the quality of education provided in these institutions. Yet Middle States allegedly deferred accreditation of Baruch and Westminster because those institutions did not conform to the accrediting agency's view of an appropriate racial, ethnic or gender balance on the faculty or governing board. America's strength lies in its variety, especially in the diversity of its people. We are a huge patchwork quilt of different backgrounds and cultural experiences. Many colleges and universities seek to become communities that reflect this American experience, to attract individuals of many different backgrounds. Other colleges and universities have chosen different missions for themselves. In light of the enormous variety among colleges and universities in this country, should a regional accrediting agency dictate to institutions whether or how they should balance their students, faculty, administration and governing boards by race, ethnicity, gender or age? Middle States' "diversity" initiative may undermine institutional autonomy and academic freedom and could in fact lessen variety among the nation's colleges and universities. A decision by an accrediting agency to withhold accreditation from an educational institution carries serious consequences. A negative decision by an accrediting agency not only stigmatizes the institution, but may lead to a cutoff offederal student aid and other forms offederal financial assistance. Since about one out of every two postsecondary students now depends on some form of federal aid, this is a powerful sanction to use against an institution. Such an extreme step may be necessary when an educational institution fails to meet its most basic responsibility to provide a sound education to its students. But, because of its serious consequences, a Department- recognized regional accrediting agency should exercise great care before threatening to suspend accreditation on any grounds other than academic quality or institutional integrity. I look forward to working with you to strengthen and improve higher education. I especially hope that we can focus on encouraging accrediting agencies to develop stronger standards by which to gauge the quality of education provided to postsecondary students. Page6 LETTERS from Santa Fe THE SECRETARY'S Reprinted below are sections from Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander's decision on April 11, 1991 to review the certification of Middle States. The Secretary has asked that section of the Department that recognizes accrediting agencies to review the certification of Middle States at its Fall 1991 meeting. Towards that end, all who wish to comment to the Department 's Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional eligibility must do so byjuly31 ofthisyear. -].A . n order for a postsecondary institution and its students to be eligible for many types of Federal financial assistance, it must be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary of Education (unless one of the statutory alternatives to such accreditation applies). About one out of every two postsecondary students in this country now receives some form of federal financial assistance. For that reason, accreditation by a recognized agency is for most institutions not simply a matter of choosing to affiliate with like-minded institutions in a voluntary association; it is a matter of necessity. I can certainly understand why a Mz'ddl~ college or university might try to attract students, faculty and employ''dz'versz'ty ees of very different backgrounds. mayun America is a country of people from z'nstz'tt a variety of backgrounds and experiences. That is part of its unique autono: strength. Many colleges and univeracademic sities seek to become communities reflecting the variety that is America. Other colleges and universities have chosen different missions for themselves. In light of the enormous variety among colleges and universities in this country, should a regional accrediting agency dictate to institutions whether or how they should balance their students, faculty, administration and governing boards by race, ethnicity, gender, or age? I am concerned that CHE's prescription and application of diversity standards as part of the accreditation process may undermine the reliability of accreditation decisions as basic indicators of an institution's adequacy in providing training and education to the I July 1991 �DECISION students. I am also concerned that CHE's prescription and application of diversity standards as part of the accreditation process may interfere with a postsecondary institution's traditional academic freedom and may decrease real diversity among postsecondary educational institutions that define their educational missions differently. While as a voluntary private association CHE may wish to promote various social goals or agendas as it sees fit, the federal recognition role is subject to additional considerations . As mentioned earlier, the accreditation decisions of Department recognized accrediting agencies have serious consequences under federal law for institutions and students . For that reason, the Department must be careful not to sanction coercive restrictions on traditional academic independence through the departmental recognition process. CHE and other interested parties should have ample opportunity to address my concerns about the application of CHE's diversity standards . Moreover, before I reach any final decision on CHE's petition, I wish to receive the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on matters within that Committee's expertise . That ComStates' mittee at its Fall 1990 meeting voted ' initiative to defer making a recommendation 'ermine on CHE' s petition because of many of those same concerns about CHE's ~ional diversity standards . Accordingly, I ~and am deferring a decision on CHE's freedom. petition for renewal of recognition and remanding this matter to the Advisory Committee. CHE and other interested parties are invited to submit supplemental material addressing all the above issues . To allow adequate time for review by the Advisory Committee and by the Department, CHE and any other interested parties should submit any additional written materials on CHE's renewal petition to the Accrediting Agency Evaluation Branch, Office of Postsecondary Education, by July 31, 1991. What follows . is the Middle States Association's own excerpts regarding its diversity requirements from its guidelines document Characteristics of Excellence, approved in December ·J 988. The Association underscores thaJ, in applying these principles, the institutions themselves are expected to ''determine the methods most suitable to their unique needs .... " Nonetheless, in releasing this summary the Association "reaffirmed the appropn'aJeness of procedure and actions with regard to Baruch College.. .. " -J.A. CHARACTERISTICS OF EXCELLENCE: In the current · version of Characteristics of Excellence, approved at the Middle States Association annual meeting in December 1988, the relevant statements on equity and diversity are.these: • Eligibility Requirements: Among the stated eligibility criteria for membership in the Middle States Association are requirements that an institution "have a governing board which includes a diverse membership broadly representative of the public interest and reflecting the student constituency.'' • Institutional Integrity: Among the standards for accreditation (the common elements for accreditation) is an expectation that institutions will have "humane and equitable policies for dealing with students, staff, and faculty" and "programs and courses which develop abilities to form independent judgment, to weigh values, to understand fundamental theory, and to live in a culturally diverse world . . . . ' ' • Programs and Curricula: In reference to programs and curricula, Characteristics states: "Where possible a global perspective should be introduced to emphasize the cultural diversity and interrelatedness of the contemporary world. " Furthermore, "the kinds of courses that ~hould be included in general education are those which draw students into important new areas of intellectual experience, increase awareness of each individual's own cultural heritage as well as that of otfo~rs, and prepare them to make sound judgments outside as well as Within their specialized field .'' • Services to Students: Student services '' ... should also address with more •·• than mere expressions of intent the special needs and concerns of minority students." Students should be given ''an environment in which personal integrity, social understandi11g, and human sensitivity flourish.'' • Admissions Regarding admissions, .Characteristics .states: ' 'An important index of an institution's caliber is its admissions policy as evidenced .in requirements, standards, and procedures, and in the efforts it makes to achieve diversity in the student population.'' · • Faculty As regards faculty, Characteristics stresses that ..the . "selection of the faculty must avoid parochialism and excessive inbreeding. Steps must also be taken to achieve appropriate diversity of.race, ethnicity, gender, and age in faculty ranks.'' · • Governing Board Finally, members of.the governing board "should represent different points of view, interests, and experiences as well as diversityin age, race, ethnicity, and gender." · July 1991 LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 7 �Stephen S. Weiner Accrediting Bodies Must Require AComnitment To Diversity A Accrediting bodies stand at the boundary between higher education and the public. merican colleges and universities are undergoing massive changes in the racial and ethnic composition of their student bodies. What is the relation between those changes and issues of educational quality? What role should accrediting agencies play in shaping campus actions concerning diversity and quality? In 1988, after extensive discussion among our 152 accredited and candidate institutions, the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges decided that every accredited institution, as part of its commitment to educational quality , should be expected to make continuing progress toward becoming a multiracial, multicultural institution. The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges in our region and the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools have taken similar stands . Our commission recognizes that today's college students will come to maturity as parents, workers, voters, and professionals in a world that has no majority . Colleges and universities must keep that world very much in mind as they shape the educational experiences they offer. As the Association of American Colleges declared in its 1985 report "Integrity in the College Curriculum": "All study is intended to break down the narrow certainties and provincial vision with which we are born. In a sense, we are all from the provinces, including New Yorkers and Bostonians, whose view of the world can be as circumscribed as that of native Alaskans who have never left their village ... . At this point in history colleges are not being asked to produce village squires but citizens of a shrinking world and a changing America.'' Diversity is already a fact of life both in our region and on our campuses. The proportion of Caucasians in California's population is predicted to drop below 50% within the next 15 years. In 1988, white, non-Hispanic students accounted for 65% of the state ' s college enrollment, compared with close to 80% for the nation as a whole. In Hawaii, white, non-Hispanic students make up 30% of campus enrollments. While changes in the composition of the population have affected our region earlier than most others, there is a steady shift to a more diverse population throughout the United States. Thus, the issue This essay by Stephen S. Weiner, Executive Director Western Association of Schools and Colleges, appeared in the October 10, 1990 issue of the of the Chronicle ofHigher Education. Page8 LETTERS from Santa Fe now is less whether racial and ethnic diversity is coming than it is how to harness that diversity to the cause of educational improvement. The commission's expectations regarding diversity affect virtually every aspect of campus life, and, therefore, each of our accrediting standards. For example, the commission's standard on institutional integrity now includes this statement: "The institution demonstrates its commitment to the increasingly significant educational role played by diversity of ethnic, social , and economic backgrounds among its members by making positive efforts to foster such diversity.'' This standard requires institutions to have equal-opportunity and affirmative action policies . "Appreciation of cultural diversity" has been added to the commission's expectations concerning the outcomes of undergraduate education, along with competence in written ' and oral communication, quantitative skills, and the habit of critical analysis of data and argument . With respect to the learning environment, the commission expects that each institution will have "an academic community that significantly involves its various populations. '' First, we ask both institutions and our teams not to define the challenge of diversityor its attainment-solely in terms of numbers of minority group students or faculty, staff, or governing-board members. Contrary to the fear expressed by some, we are not pressing for the adoption of quotas . Having members of minority groups in each constituency of an institution, especially in leadership positions, is essential and a prerequisite for meaningful dialogue about diversity. But our concerns go well beyond such counting exercises to the culture of the campus, the value placed upon diversity, in different aspects of campus life, and the ability of the campus to bridge the contrasting perceptions of reality held by members of different ethnic and racial groups . Interviews, focus-group discussions, and the analysis of institutional data (such as student-retention rates) often reveal a gulf in perception. Whites perceive minority group members as being treated well, while people of color often recount experiences that convince them that they are still "outsiders" and that their status on campus is both marginal and vulnerable . The first step toward addressing the tensions that arise from such diametrically opposed views is to know that they exist. Second, we look for presidential and faculty leadership in affirming that "diversity" July 1991 �does not mean a narrow effort to benefit only members of minority groups, but a commitment of talent and resources to widen everyone's intellectual grasp and personal understanding. Diversity is not a "problem" to be solved so that colleges and universities can get on with "real business ." A permanent part of the "real business " of higher education is examining how diversity and educational quality should be pursued both inside and outside the classroom. Presidents and faculty leaders need to attend to the requisites of affirmative action in employment and admissions policies, support candid assessment of the existing campus climate concerning diversity, and take the lead in articulating a vision of how a diverse and educationally challenging campus community can develop . Third, campuses should have written plans on how to achieve diversity that have been subjected to broad and searching discussion. The plans should address curricula, recruiting and retention strategies for students and faculty and staff members, student-life programs, and academic support for students. The plans should have goals and some way of assessing whether the goals are being achieved . We have found that writing such plans forces disciplined thought and commitment. The purpose of the plans is not for campus leaders to become caught in the slavish grip of a document, but rather to prompt them to come back to these issues on a continuing basis . Finally, we expect each of our visiting teams to address diversity issues in their report evaluating the institution. Our teams' reports do not impose solutions on a campus. Rather , in a collegial spirit, they analyze the institution's self-study; ask questions; report perceptions, problems and opportunities that become evident during the visits; and praise worthwhile efforts that are under way. After conducting 50 comprehensive visits under the new standards, we have learned this most important lesson: that to achieve an academic community that embraces diversity, we first have to learn how to talk about it. Issues involving race and ethnicity have emotional and political overtones, and many people feel uncomfortable discussing their perceptions, feelings , and aspirations. Two steps seem to help in getting the discussion started. The first is to remind ourselves that "diversity" should not be a code word for granting preferences to one group over another. Rather, we are seeking to build a campus community where all people, regardless of professional role, ethnicity, or gender, will be respected, will have the maximum possible opportunity for professional development, and will be productive . In particular, we are seeking to create campus cultures where individuals and July 1991 groups are deeply committed to teaching one another and learning from one another. When people begin to understand that diversity is about bringing people together, rather than driving them apart, they become far more willing to contribute their thoughts and their energy . Second , even after assurances that the goal of diversity is community building, people need to be given "protected space" in which to talk. By that I mean the guarantee that people may speak freely and candidly, in a diverse group, without fear that they will be punished or ostracized for expressing controversial opinions. At times, discussions about diversity are emotional. But the discussion must go beyond emotion. We have to be willing to think hard and anew and to explore uncomfortable questions . Conflict and disagreement often accompany progress on diversity . The campus where students are demonstrating in the president's office may be just the one that has most seriously and thoughtfully engaged the issues. And, it is also true that there are times when an ugly racial incident galvanizes a campus to take constructive steps that are long overdue. With only rare exceptions, college leaders in our region agree that diversity and educational quality are intertwined and, therefore, both are the proper concern of the regional accrediting commission . But we also find that institutions fall along a wide spectrum in their initial capaciy to respond to the commission's expectations. Campuses are changing and so is the nature of accreditation . Accrediting bodies stand at the boundary between higher education and the public . We seek to inform the public about proper standards of higher education and to affirm that certain institutions meet those standards . In turn, we must also serve as a medium to insure that public concerns are reflected in the dialogue about quality in higher education. Accreditation should be about more than the setting of minimum standards. Our role, which must be carried out with great care and deliberation, is also to challenge even the best colleges and universities to rethink their contribution to society as a whole. As accrediting bodies play that role we do not, and will not, please everyone. But as we ask tougher and better questions about the meaning of quality, we join the campuses in taking risks that are well worth taking.• LETTERS from Santa Fe Diversity and educational quality are both the proper concerns ef the regional accrediting commzsszon. Page 9 �Wzlliam R. Beer Accreditation By Quota: The Case Of Baruch College O The aifLlck on Segall and the Baruch faculty represents an omznous direction token by accreditaiion. n April 5, 1990, the New York Times reported that Dr. Joel Segall, president of Baruch College of the City University of New York, was resigning from his job, following a critical review by the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges. There was no allegation that Baruch was anything less than an excellent college. In fact, it is widely regarded as one of the four top business colleges in the country and trains almost one out of every three of the certified public accountants working in New York. Rather, the complaint was that there were not enough "minorities" in the faculty and administration and that not enough "minorities" graduated. Disturbing though this is, even more unsettling is the fact that the criticism was concocted by the central offices of the accrediting agency, acting independently of its own guidelines and evaluation team. T he attack on Segall and the Baruch faculty represents an ominous direction taken by accredita tion . For the first time, a n accrediting agency is criticizing the ethnic composition of a college's graduating class, as well as making specific complaints about the racial m akeup of its faculty and staff. According to a source on the Department of Education's National Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility, such a step is entirely unprecedented. No other accrediting agency has ever undertaken an aggressive role in attempting to impose racial quotas on faculty, administrators, and graduates. In itself, the attempt to control the ethnicity of university personnel is nothing new . In the last twenty years, the concept of affirm ative action has evolved into a quota system in which white males are routinely excluded, as John Bunzel h as d ocumented in a recent article in the American Scholar. Although deeply threatening to the integrity of the university because they undermine the concept of profession al peer review, quotas imposed on personnel committees have been a long time aborning, a nd it does not appear that they will be easily abolished. Until recently, however, the federal government was the principal agency in this coercion . Now, it appears, the effort has shifted from This ~say by William R. Beer, prof~sor of Sociowgy at Brooklyn College, is excerpt,ed from the Fall 1990 issue of At:o.tkmic Qµestions, published by the National Association of Scholars . © 1991, Transaction Publishers. Page 10 LETTERS f rom Santa Fe government to private agencies such as Middle States, accompanied by the notion that henceforth a college may have its accreditation withheld if it does not graduate the right percentage of certain ethnic groups. A Racial Graduation Quota? When asked if a college could be found delinquent for failing to graduate sufficient numbers of " minority" students, Dr. Howard L. Simmons, executive director of the Middle States Association, agreed that Middle States does use an "outcomes-based approach'' for granting or withholding its approval. H e denied that Middle States has any " ha rd and fast rules" regarding minority retention rates, indicating there is " never a single standard" in assessing a school's performance in this regard. Simmons has cla imed that his approach comes from Characl£ristics of Excellence in Higher Education: Standards for Accreditation, the handbook used by Middle States. In fact, there is no statement whatsoever in that m anual concerning minority retention rates. When this was pointed out, Simmons changed his mind and said that accreditation is granted or withheld on a case-by-case basis. " I know that sounds hard to understand," he adm itted, "but that's how they do it. The team decides differently for each school. '' There are "so m a ny factors involved " that there can be " no quantitative standards" for evaluating a college. So much for the objective criteria of accreditation . The use of an unstated but de facto racial graduation quota puts university administrators in a vulnerable position, since there is no way to tell whether Middle States will cha rge them with not having satisfied the goal of graduating sufficient numbers of designated minority groups. The lack of precision permits Middle States to deny that they are seeking any exact outcome, thereby avoiding legal action. At the same time, when it suits them they can use the " outcomes-based a pproach" as a potential threat to colleges seeking accreditation. Knowing that they will be held to a n inexact but real racial graduation quota, residents and deans will be inclined to design programs to increase graduation prospects for protected groups. Middle States can thus obtain the desired outcome without ever ha ving to invoke the threat explicitly, a nd all the while remain protected from public scrutiny. Simmons admits having adopted the same tactic with many other institutions, but because of the secrecy involved in the accredita tion process, July 1991 �he has not had to be held publicly accountable . The other criticism leveled against Baruch is that it does not employ enough "minorities.'' In reality, this argument is absurd since many Baruch professors are Jewish and non-white Asians . But in education-speak, such individuals are not defined as "minorities. '' Middle States is actually arguing that Baruch's faculty has too many non-Hispanic whites and not enough blacks for a student body that includes many blacks and Hispanics . Thus, the broader question at issue is whether or not white instructors can adequately teach "minority" students. The "diversity " of a student body, according to Middle States, must be matched by a corresponding "diversity " of faculty and administrators. This belief is so widespread amongst academic administrative cognoscenti that few question it. When the logic of such a concept is challeneged , the usual response is that a white professor cannot be as good a "role model" for a black student as a black professor. While one may suggest that professors can serve as inspirational mentors to college students, no evidence exists that such individuals must be of the same sex, race, or cultural background. The idea of "role model," in short, is fraudulently applied in the field of higher education . Indeed, if such a concept did make sense, it would have exactly th e opposite results of what Middle States ostensibly desires . It would mean not only that black students should be counseled to take courses only from black professors. If black students need black professors as role models to spur them to greater levels of achievement, white students require and deserve the same kind of encouragement. Taken to its logical conclusion, the "role model" argument is actually a strong justification for racial segregation in higher education. If black students respond best to black professors, they ought to maximize their chances by enrolling at all-black colleges. The same would apply, mutatis mutandis, to white students. In the classic accreditation process, institutions are evaluated on the basis of the stringency or laxity of their educational standards. In the past, if a college was found to be too lax, accreditation was withheld, or perhaps conditionally granted pending correction of certain deficiencies. But now, for the first time, a college's accreditation has been "deferred," not because its standards are too low, but because they are too high. An institution of higher learning is being directed to arrange its faculty , administration, and curriculum so that a de facto racial graduation quota can be filled . Aside from some serious issues of law, this initiative July 1991 represents the latest step in the abolition of institutional autonomy and faculty control over the hiring process. It is no coincidence that this new and arbitrary direction has been taken by a private accrediting agency. In 1989 the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that seriously undermined the ability of government to require institutions to use racial and sexual quotas in hiring and promotions. Though this was a serious setback for those who would like to see a political system governed by racial and sexual entitlement, they have evidently regrouped. For example, under the sponsorship of Senators Kennedy and Hawkins, the Civil Rights bill of 1990 currently being argued in Congress would reimpose on employers the burden of proving that they did not discriminate against minorities in hiring. Since it is virtually impossible to prove that something has not occured, the result will be that employers (including colleges and universities) will be obliged to adopt quotas in hiring in order to forestall potential lawsuits. This is particularly likely because the same legislation will require employers to pay the cost of employees' litigation, thus encouraging plaintiffs to make complaints of discrimination free of charge On the level of academic rhetoric, the tactic has been to substitute "diversity" for the now-tainted "affirmative action," since it is widely recognized that the latter has produced discriminatory preferential hiring. Surveys show that most blacks, as well as most whites, are opposed to preferential treatment for blacks. Using "diversity" sounds better because the term is vague and it is hard to say one is against it. But the Baruch case shows what " diversity" truly means; it is simply old wine in new bottles. That there is no logical or empirical justification for racial quotas in hiring or graduation should not need saying. But Simmons and his allies are not governed by logic or facts; they are driven by a sense of moral righteousness that is impervious to any argument. Rather than conforming to consistent and objective standards of excellence, Simmons makes up the rules as he goes along. Rather than appealing to the intellect, Simmons tugs at people ' s basest emotions in order to impose his political agenda on higher education.• LETTERS from Santa Fe The Bamch case shows what, ''divers£ry ))truly means)· zt is simply old wine in new bottles. Page 11 �•Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. I I Profile Profile Profile Profile • Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, non-elective arts and science program based on reading and discussing, m loosely chronolpgical order , the G reat Books of Western C ivilization. • Approach: . Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/faculty ratio is 8: I. St. J ohn's is independent and non-sectarian . • Degree Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. • Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. C urrent freshman class made up of 55 % men and 45 % women, from 30 states and several foreign countries. Fifty-seven percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. • Alumni Careers: Education-21 % , business- 20 % , law-10 % , visual and performing arts-9% , medicine- 7% , science and engineering- 7 % , computer science- 6 % , writing and publishing-5 % . • Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary M aster 's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program . Oflered on both campuses year-round~ � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 12 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, July 1991 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, July 1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-07 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Segall, Joel E., 1923- Weiner, Stephen S. Beer, William R., 1943- Alexander, Lamar, 1940- Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1991-07 Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/b44c8e3d170681e3fe47763c6a5620dd.pdf 33ccf451cf0314a38f7e75dc7303b128 PDF Text Text LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John 's College, Santa Fe, New Mexico J anuary 1991 A Message from the President 2 John Agresto 4 David W Breneman A Light for Higher Education Dear Friends, For almost a decade now there has been a growing debate about education at all levels-from elementary through graduate school. There have been monthly, it not weekly, reports, studies, surveys, and predictions issued on the state of American education. So many, that the central issue of what constitutes a good education and how to improve the education America's youth receive has often, I'm afraid, gotten lost in the rhetoric. Thus. this newsletterLetters from Santa Fe. You will see as you read this newsletter that it is not about education across the board but about American higher education in general and American liberal education in particular. This is for purely personal reasons-I have been involved in higher education all of my professional career, and I am the president of a four-year liberal arts college. I would like for Letters from Santa Fe to be a source of information to readers on the state of higher education, to give facts and figures that may not have crossed your desks, to reprint articles of general interest, to offer some observations on what is and is not working, and to let you know what's going on at the liberal arts college I know best, St. John's. For the most part. this newsletter will go to friends and professional acquaintances I have made over the years. However, at the best, these letters will be a two-way street with your writing if there is something you know, or notice. or want to bring to our collective attention. If this newsletter not only gives you valuable information but also helps start a conversation among us about the character and quality of American education, then I think we will have accomplished a great deal. 1n this first issue there will be more about St. John's College than in subsequent ones just because many of you are unfamiliar with who we are and what we do. Included is the talk I gave at my recent inauguration as well as the results of a study of how our students did compared to other students in a national survey. Also, there are articles by David W. Breneman and Lynne V. Cheney I think you will find interesting and helpful. So, this is our first issue of Letters from Santa Fe. Let me know what you think. 5 10 Are We Losing Our Liberal Arts Colleges? Lynne V Cheney Research and Teaching at Colleges and Universities Special Report: St. John's Seniors Ace NEH Survey While National Sample Flunks �John Agresto A Light for Higher Education Inaugural Address, April 28, 1990 we think about the place of college W hen education in America, many of us In the last thirty years the number of students concentrating in the liberal arts has fallen from 60 percent to around 10 percent. Page 2 automatically think of liberal education: of students leaving home for four years to read some literature, study some history, learn about languages, study mathematics, or bi0logy , psychology or classics. To think this way is simply an anachronism, simply false . In the last thirty years the number of students in American colleges and universities who can be said to concentrate in the liberal arts, or in some major area of the liberal arts, has fallen astonishingly. The figures are soft, but they look something like this: in the last thirty years the number of students concentrating in the liberal arts has fallen from approximately 60 percent of the college population to somewhere just around 10 percent. To think of American collegiate education today as liberal education is simply not true: the great bulk of it is technical, vocational , commercial and professional education . Everyone, it would seem, within the academy has the same explanation for the shift away from the liberal arts: students have been captured by materialism and commercialism, sttldents have lost their idealism, students have been seduced by bourgeois American capitalism and Wall Street or have simply given in to their narcissistic desire to be rich, selfish, competitive and comfortable. These explanations are, I think, by and large false and deluding. The leaders of American higher education often have the incredibly elastic ability to blame everything and everyone for their woes-everyone, that is, but themselves. So what's wrong with higher education today that has precipitated this monumental decline in liberal education? Plenty. First, it clearly has something to do with the decline of teaching. While I have no objection to good research and scholarship in the liberal arts, and I know that there are some students who pride themselves on association with the names of great scholars on their campuses, I do think that most students would rather be in the company of a great teacher than on a campus with renowned but unavailable researchers. Second, it has something to do with LETTERS fro m Santa Fe arrogance and contempt. I mean especially contempt for this country and this civilization . We all have our stories and we've all compiled enough evidence to know that the segment of the academy that almost seems to pride itself on its gloating disdain for general American habits and ways and hopes and loves is not to be found in schools of nursing or pharmacology or electrical engineering or accounting, but in the liberal arts. Yet students, despite what their parents might think, come to college with an instinctive, wholesome and totally proper love of country, of customs, and even of religious values and institutions. And while no one begrudges the academy its role as cultural critic, students do sense that if what they'll be subjected to is politics and ideology masquerading as teaching, or if they see themselves subject to an unremitting attack on Western civilization or on their untutored but seemingly sensible devotion to certain principles and values, well, they'd sooner major in business or finance, thank you all the same. It's a sad situation, for I've seen that the more professors drive away students because of their disdain and contempt for the principles and works of this civilization, the more they blame the character of today's students rather than themselves. LETTERSfrom Santa Fe A quarterly newsletter on higher education Published in January, April, July, and October at St. john 's College, Santa Fe. Submit letters or comments to: John Agresto, President St . john's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 -1599 Telephone (505) 982-3691 FAX (505) 989-9269 john Agresto, Publisher Ben Galison, Editor Douglas Jerrold Houston, Design and Production Copyright Santa Fe. © 1991 by St. John 's College, J anuary 199 1 �Third, the trivialization of the liberal arts has probably driven as many students away as the politicization of the liberal arts. Once we say that there are no great books to read or great ideas to understand or great people to study but that virtually all things are equally instructive, interesting or valuable, the more our students will disbelieve us and rightly walk away. If books and ideas are objects of play rather than substantial, transformative and significant items central and important for life, why bother? Then we've really made the liberal arts irrelevant. And, at the cost of $60,000 or more, students will go elsewhere. Despite the incredible decline in liberal education nationally, we know that there are places where it not only survives but flourishes. Where you're standing today is a case in point. Applications to this school are as strong as, if not stronger than, ever. There's a new library. Voluntary contributions are on the rise. And everyone I meet here senses that this is a place where teaching and learning are alive and healthy, where liberal education still manifestly flourishes. We are hardly perfect, and much of what I have to say may still be in the form of goals rather than solid fact, but I do think this college can be and is a model and a light for higher education generally. Here teaching is taken seriously because learning is taken seriously. Here, in a school without academic departments, where each day the tutors themselves strive to be better and more widely educated, the drive to know, the love of learning and the desire to talk about and teach what we've seen and read is clear. When the faculty here resolves, as it has so recently, that it would rather forego all salary increases than increase the size of classes, you know that teaching is paramount. Second, when one takes the books of the Western tradition as seriously as we do here, simple contempt for the tradition, or of the principles and works of this civilization, are impossible. We simply know too much to be enemies of this culture. We know, to be sure, that one's own is not necessarily the best . But we've seen enough and read enough to know the good when we see it. And we know that as we hold the ideas and works of this tradition up for question and investigation that we also, by that very act, transmit the ideas, works and principles of this tradition forward. We are not embarrassed to be both scholars and critics and bearers of the culture all together. And we trust that we turn out and will continue to turn out graduates who J anuar·y 1991 themselves have an attachment to this civilization as well. We trust that we are turning out students who are public servants and producers of public goods and not just carpers and critics. On that score, we also know that knowledge is not necessarily virtue-we know that there can be angels in understanding and devils in conduct. What is left for us to show, however, is that knowledge and virtue, education and public spiritedness, are not incompatible . What we have to show is what is written on the first page of our catalog, something which I think many institutions would be ashamed to reprint each year, though we are not-it goes like this: "Liberal education should seek to develop free and rational men and women committed to the pursuit of knowledge in its fundamental unity, intelligently appreciative of their common cultural heritage and conscious of their social and moral obligations." If we can do these things with fervor and intelligence, St. John's will continue to be what I think it is at present, a light to all colleges, a leader in the meaning of liberal education, and the maker of men and women of whom we and our fellow citizens will be proud. Here teaching is taken seriously because learning is taken seriously. LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 3 �David W. Breneman Are We Losing Our Liberal Arts Colleges? of doing research for a book I onn thethecourse future of private liberal arts colleges, I made a startling discovery. While I began with the belief that there were roughly 600 such institutions in this country, I have concluded that, given a reasonable definition of a liberal arts college, we have only about 200 of them left. My discovery was as simple as it was disturbing: The liberal arts college as we know it is disappearing from the landscape, and another type of institution-the professional college-is taking its place. Furthermore, I believe that most educators are not aware of this "sea change," nor have we begun to debate its significance . The liberal arts college as we know it is disappearing from the landscape. A Unique Mission Among the nation's 3400 colleges and universities, only the liberal arts colleges are distinguished by a mission of providing four-year baccalaureate education exclusively, in a setting that emphasizes and rewards good teaching above all else. These colleges tend to enroll small numbers of students; they emphasize liberal education over professional training. They are the source of a disproportionate number of graduates who go on to earn doctorates and to pursue academic careers. Their "privateness" means that certain values-religious and otherwise-can inform their mission in ways not possible at state institutions, while their small size makes possible a sense of community among students, faculty, and staff that can rarely be achieved in larger settings. The diversity of American higher education, one of its oft-noted and much-valued attributes, will be much reduced if these small private colleges are unable to sustain themselves and their mission because of changing economic circumstances. languages, social sciences, and physical sciences. They rarely enroll more than 2500 students; most enroll between 800 and 1800. The kind of education they provide might be described as pre-professional: Many students enroll in graduate or professional programs upon graduation, but the college itself offers virtually no undergraduate professional education. Economically, liberal arts colleges have comparable revenue and cost structures. Their common economic struggle is partly a function of their offering a curriculum that does not cater to current . student concerns with the job market. While remaining true to an educational ideal, liberal arts colleges must compete with universities that provide many more courses and majors, as well as a vast array of professional degrees in fields such as business, engineering, architecture, nursing, and education. And while it is easy to understand the pressure on colleges to shift away from offering liberal arts toward offering professional training, it is all the more important to appreciate the financial constraints of liberal arts colleges that have not taken that way out. David Breneman then lists 140 colleges as "Liberal Arts I" colleges-those private institutions in which more than half of the degrees awarded were in the arts and sciences. Only 140. Indeed, in our area, in addition to St. J ohn' s, the only comparable institution listed is Colorado College . Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Oklahoma have none, and Texas only one. -J .A. Defining Terms After further thought it soon became apparent that liberal arts colleges might be characterized in two ways: by their educational ideals and by their economic structure . Educationally, these colleges award the bachelor of arts degree, are residential, enroll full-time students in the age range of 18 to 24, and limit the number of majors to roughly twenty in the arts, humanities, Page 4 LETTERS.from Santa Fe David W. Breneman is a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a visiting fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D . C. He was presidmt of Kalamazoo College, Michigan, during 1983-1989. This article is reprinted with permission .from The Colltge Board Review, No. 156, Summer 1990. © 1990 by College Entrance Examination Board, New York. January 1991 �Lynne V. Cheney Research and Teachinp at Colleges and Universities decades critics have been saying that Forinstitutions of higher education do not do enough to encourage good teaching. Classicist William Arrowsmith made this point in 1967, observing that "at present, the universities are as uncongenial to teaching as the Mojave Desert to a clutch of Druid priests.'' Almost a quarter century later, historian Page Smith asserts that faculties "are in full flight from teaching .... In many universities, faculty members make no bones about the fact that students are the enemy. It is students who threaten to take up precious time that might otherwise be devoted to research. '' This situation has not come about because faculty members necessarily prefer research. In a recent survey, 71 percent reported that their interests either leaned toward or lay primarily in teaching. But the road to success-or even to survival-in the academic world is through publishing. Anthropologist Bradd Shore notes, "If you fail at the teaching and fail at the service but still do terrific scholarship, you are likely to get tenure," but not the other way around. A senior literature professor, who himself publishes actively, reports that " the way one prospers is by finding time away from teaching to get one's own work done." Philosopher Thomas Flynn relates the advice he received as a young assistant professor trying to get tenure: ' ' Beware of the students. They will destroy you." Dramatic Emphasis on Research The most dramatic examples of how research is valued over teaching occur when faculty members who have won campuswide awards for teaching suddenly find themselves without jobs. A 1988 article in The Chronicle of Higher E ducation even raised the possibility that teaching awards, by implying that a faculty member is not as serious about research as he or she should be, are "the kiss of death" as far as achieving tenure is concerned. Economist Thomas Sowell reports, "I personally know three different professors at three different institutions who have gotten the Teacher of the Year Award and were then told that their contracts would not be renewed. '' The emphasis on research is greatest at J anuary 1991 research universities where 64 percent of the faculty report spending five hours or less per week on formal classroom instruction and 86 percent report spending six or more hours per week on research. At liberal arts colleges, by contrast, only 16 percent of the faculty report less than five hours a week in the classroom; and 48 percent report spending six or more hours on research. Even at liberal arts colleges, however, the emphasis on research is growing. Fifty liberal arts schools have banded together under the lead of Oberlin College and are considering calling themselves "research colleges." Schools such as Colorado College, Grinnell, and Wellesley have reduced the number of hours faculty teach so that they have more time to do research. A recent survey of twelve liberal arts colleges reported that faculty frequently distinguish between teaching and what they often call, significantly, 'my own work, ' '' or research. Faculty members often blame administrators for the emphasis placed on research, but administrators are responding to powerful external forces. The money that flows to their institutions and the prestige their schools enjoy will be largely dictated by the research those institutions do. Thomas Sowell points out that hundreds of millions of federal dollars flow into research at universities. "Money talks in academia as elsewhere," Sowell notes, ''and what money says on most campuses is 'do research.' " Emory University's Frank Manley observes that academic reputation is established through the public act of publishing, not through the more private act of teaching. " The people who have status outside the University, who are writing and publishing, are the ones who are going to get the status inside the University," says Manley. "They are the ones. who are looked upon with most favor by the administrators because they are the ones who have the marquee value for the University.'' Even at liberal ll h arts co eges, t e emphasis on research is growing The Tyrannical Machine that Reigns The model that increasingly drives all of higher education- the tyrannical machine that reigns- was fir st established in the United States at the end of the nineteenth LETTER S from Santa Ft Page 5 �century. Derived from German universities, this model emphasized the production of knowledge rather than its diffusion. Both Daniel Coit Gilman and G. Stanley Hall, influential spokesmen for the new university ideal, thought that the scholar's proper role lay in producing "bricks" for the rising temple of knowledge. William James was among the first to note that such a singleminded view threatened a system in which there were many paths to excellence. It was in a 1903 essay on the Ph.D.-the degree associated with the new, research-oriented university-that James coined the phrase ''tyrannical machine. '' Teaching Less The gradually shrinking academic year also affects time faculty members spend in the classroom. Page6 One of the most dramatic effects of emphasizing the production of new knowledge-that is, research that leads to publication-rather than the communication of knowledge to the next generation-that is, teaching-has been a decline in how much faculty members teach. At four-year institutions, time spent by faculty in the classroom has decreased steadily. According to one estimate, teaching responsibilities at noted research universities_ have, since 1920, decreased in many instances by one-third, and often by half to two-thirds. As the president of York College of Pennsylvania, Robert Iosue, notes, it is difficult to be precise about the degree to which teaching responsibilities have declined because official teaching loads are often different from actual ones, which may be reduced for such work as service on a faculty committee. " In one bizarre case," louse says, "a professor received fifteen hours of reduction from an official work load of twelve hours. He was paid a three-hour teaching overload yet did not step inside the classroom. '' The gradually shrinking academic year also affects time faculty members spend in the classroom. In the late 1960s, according to an executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, most colleges had two seventeenweek semesters. Now, two fifteen-week semesters are more typical, with some schools in session as few as twenty-eight weeks-or half a year. Observing that students in Missouri institutions of higher education now spend a semester and a half less in college than students in the 1940s, Governor John Ashcroft has asked the schools in his state to lengthen the academic year. Because the prestige of an institution depends on whether it has a faculty well known for publishing, colleges and universities frequently raid other institutions for their research stars. "Hiring superprofessors," LETTERS from Santa Fe observes Lewis H. Miller of Indiana University, "is a quick and easy method of raising the value of one's academic stock." The primary way of luring faculty from other institutions is to offer them reduced teaching loads. As Lee Knefelkamp of the American Association for Higher Education puts it, "Unfortunately, the blue chip that we play in the poker game these days is to offer our best scholars less time with students. The currency of higher education has become, in fact, less time with the constituency we are supposed to serve." Professor Miller reports that when he was a dean, faculty members who visited his office to discuss offers they had from other institutions were almost always more attracted by the possibility of teaching less than the promise of earning more. "Although some of these colleagues were teaching just one or two courses a year," Miller writes, "they were being wooed by the prospect of a 50 percent reduction, even if that translated into teaching one course every other year. " When faculty members teach less, there is a financial consequence. Because more people must be hired to teach, the costs of education escalate-and so does tuition. Between 1980-81 and 1989-90, average tuition charges rose an inflation-adjusted 50 percent at public universities, 66 percent at private universities, and 57 percent at other private four-year schools. Other factors, including increased administrative expenses, account for some of these increases; but with instructional budgets typically comprising 40 percent of educational and general expenditures, the decline in the amount of time faculty members spend in the classroom clearly plays a role. Between 1977 and 1987, while the number of full-time arts and sciences students decreased by 14 percent, the number of full-time arts and science faculty members increased by 16 percent, but it is hard to find evidence that instruction benefited. Instead there are reports of students unable to get into classes or to take the courses they want. At the University of Texas at Austin, after the English department reduced the teaching load by one-third, students stood in long lines in Parlin Hall , waiting, as the student newspaper put it, " for an English class, any English class, to open.'' At Northwestern University , a student editorial complained about course offerings in history, noting that 20 percent of the department was on leave to do research and that none of the four highly publicized, newly hired faculty members in the department was teaching. An ''Academic Underclass'' Even though the number of arts and sciences students has declined markedly and J anuary 1991 �are often unsupervised; and while· some manage to be excellent teachers without any orientation or opportunity to discuss their work with experienced faculty members, few find themselves rewarded for a job well done. In fact what graduate students learn, all too often, is that teaching is not worth doing well. Says Frank Manley of Emory University, "I left Uohns Hopkins] with the idea that my main job was to do research, write books, and neglect undergraduates, because otherwise they would take all my time .... My career has been in part an unlearning of what I learned in graduate school." Jaime O'Neill of Butte College in Oroville, California, says that it took him "five years of adjustment to get over the snobbery of graduate school. The High Price the number of faculty members has increased significantly, many institutions still find themselves short of teachers. They frequently fill in the gap with what has been called an ''academic underclass'' -part-time instructors. Part-timers, who in 1988 comprised 37 percent of faculty nationwide, are paid much less than full-time faculty. A survey of English departments showed the typical parttime faculty member earning $1,500 per course although there were examples of departments paying as little as $400. Colleges and universities often cap the number of courses that a part-timer can teach so they will not have to pay fringe benefits. Thus many part-timers become "gypsy scholars," frantically commuting between teaching assignments at different institutions and frequently looking for other ways to supplement their salaries. Michael Shenefelt, a part-timer at New York University and Long Island University, reports that by supplementing his income as an office temporary, he is able to earn $20,00 a year. "A New York University elevator operator begins at $20,000," Shenefelt observes. For Ph.D.-granting institutions, graduate students are another source of cheap labor for the classroom, one used extensively at some universities. A 1989 walkout at Berkeley is reported to have caused the cancellation of nearly 75 percent of classes. Like part-time instructors, graduate students January 1991 Across the country are thousands of faculty members whose professional lives run counter to the prevailing culture of academia. At a liberal arts college in the Midwest where a new emphasis on publication has led to a cutback in course offerings, a literature professor teaches as many courses as he possibly can to try to make up the shortfall. "I am permitted to teach on an unlimited basis," he says "and I do. If I did not do this many students would not be able to take a literature course . " All too often, however, a decision to emphasize teaching exacts a price. At the University of Maryland, associate professor Maynard Mack, Jr., notes that his own focus on teaching "is not a fast track to that promotion. I should minimize my campus responsibilities and produce a second book." Nowhere is the Countertrend to academia's current culture stronger than in community colleges. The mission of these institutions is clear. "We are a practical teaching college," in the words of one professor. But in a system of higher education that does not place high value on teaching, community colleges rank low in prestige. Having less status than four-year colleges, they command fewer resources. Their faculty members earn less even though they teach more . The overwhelming majority of community college faculty spend more than eleven hours a week in the classroom; 10 percent spend more than twenty hours a week. Many find year-round employment a necessity. "If you don't teach,'' says Evelyn Edson of Piedmont Virginia Community College, "you work at Shoney's [a fast-food restaurant] in the summer. You get some kind of job. " The results can be too little time to undertake the reading and reflection that make for better teaching, too little time to exchange ideas with other faculty members about issues in one's field or ways to improve courses and curricula. LETTERS from Santa Fe Graduate students are another source of cheap labor for the classroom. Page 7 �Faculty Interests and Student Needs Focusing on increasingly narrow topics is one way of achieving the originality that publication demands. Page8 The increased emphasis on research has resulted in a surge of publications. The number of books and articles published annually on Shakespeare grew by 80 percent between 1968 and 1988; the number on Virginia Woolf by 800 percent. With so much being written, individual researchers find themselves having to take up narrower and narrower topics in order to find a niche. The consequences were apparent in the 1970s when Professor William Schaefer became editor of Publications of the Modern Language Association. Discovering a backlog of articles on exceedingly specialized topics, Schaefer developed a new editorial policy emphasizing articles of "significant interest"; but PMLA, despite being one of the premier journals of the academic world, did not receive a sufficient number of articles of wider interest to sustain the new plan. Focusing on increasingly narrow topics is one way of achieving the originality that publication demands. Another, as Gerald Graff has noted, is proposing innovative interpretations. "The new wave of paracritical and metacritical improvisation in criticism .. . . " Graff wrote in 1979, "may be a necessary spur to industrial growth at a time when the conventional modes of professional publication have worn thin." The importance of new theoretical approaches to scholarly publishing can be seen in journal article after journal article in which scholars write about ''foregrounding,'' ''appropriating,'' "inscribing," and "engendering." It can be seen in books: An historian, for example, takes up such topics as ''The Semantics of Transcendence as a General Academic Code" and "Historiographical Rejection of Cultural Disengagement." Theory shapes the programs of professional gatherings. At the Modern Language Association's most recent convention, papers were given on "The Authority of Female Representation in the Postmodern Matrix,'' '' Prosaics and Semiotic Totalitarianism,'' and ''Narrative Dismemberment: Psychological Digressions in the Structure of Hypertests." Members of the College Art Association are currently being invited to present papers on "Rethinking the 'Foucauldian' association of photography with the generalized 'panoptic' regime of truth and power. '' It is not surprising that faculty would want to teach what interests them professionally, but the extent to which specialization and new theoretical approaches have affected curricula may well startle anyone who has not LETTERS from Santa Fe followed the collegiate course of study over the last few decades. A student can fulfill core requirements at Harvard by studying tuberculosis from 1842 to 1952, and distributive requirements at Dartmouth with "Sexuality and Writing," which analyzes "the use of sexuality and its ramifications as symbols for the process of literary creativity, with particular reference to ... potency and creative fertility; marriage or adultery and literary sterility; deviation and/or solitude and autobiography; prostitution and history; chastity and literary self-referentiality.'' Concern for Western Civilization Courses At the University of Minnesota, faculty in the humanities department recently proposed doing away with the ten courses the department offers in Western civilization and substituting three new courses: "Discourse and Society," "Text and Context," and "Knowledge, Persuasion, and Power." In these introductory courses, students will analyze "ways that certain bodies of discourse come to cohere, to exercise persuasive power, and to be regarded as authoritative, while other are marginalized, ignored, or denigrated ." More advanced courses are also being planned, including "Music as Discourse," for which the syllabus includes music videos, a heavy metal concert, and songs sung at a workers' strike . Resistance from faculty in other departments as well as from students has led the humanities department to give up plans to abandon the Western civilization courses immediately. For the time being, the older curriculum will continue to be offered along with the newer ones. There is concern, however, about how long the Western civilization courses will last since the overwhelming majority of faculty members in the humanities department has little interest in teaching them. A disgruntled student at Minnesota observes, "This is all because members of.a department want to teach what they want to teach"-which is not necessarily what undergraduates need to learn. A recent nationwide survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the National Endowment for the Humanities showed that many students manage to approach college graduation with alarming gaps in knowledge. About 25 percent of the nation's college seniors were unable to date Columbus's journey within the correct halfcentury. More than 30 percent could not identify the Reformation. "We are graduating a generation that knows less and less,'' says Vassar sociology January 1991 �professor James Farganis. In the absence of required, broad-based courses in which undergraduates study significant events and books, Farganis notes, "students are picking and choosing, making their own curriculum in a haphazard fashion." Some students do not study American or English literature at all: It is possible to graduate from 45 percent of the nation's colleges and universities without doing so. Similarly, some undergraduates do not study history: It is possible to graduate from 38 percent of the nation's colleges and universities without doing so. At 41 percent of colleges and universities, it is possible to graduate without studying mathematics; at 33 percent, without studying natural and physical sciences. Significant Decline in Humanities Majors Between 1968 and 1988, while the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the United States grew by 56 percent, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the humanities fell by 39 percent. There have also been significant declines in mathematics and physical science majors during this period: down 33 percent and 9 percent, respectively. For the humanities (and for mathematics) the situation has improved in recent years, but the loss remains significant. Twenty years ago, one out of six college graduates majored in the humanities. Today the figure is one out of sixteen. No doubt there are many explanations, but surely one is that many students come to college poorly prepared in the humanities-and in mathematics and physical sciences as well-and once in college, they do not take introductory courses that fully introduce them to the challenges and pleasures of these disciplines. How could an undergraduate who has never taken a meaningful course in history or physics choose to major in one of these fields? people now earning undergraduate degrees in English or French at our most prestigious institutions have read two or three pages of Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and Kristeva for every page of George Eliot or Stendhal. " In graduate school, students prepare to publish and survive by narrowing their focus as much as possible- and by reading theory. Elizabeth Fentress, who went to graduate school because she wanted to concentrate on original works of literature, has written about her discovery that there was no way to earn an advanced degree without diving into a "tidal wave of theory." Rather than be diverted from her goal, she ended her graduate studies. "I deemed it best to leave . ... " she writes, "and to learn what I wanted to learn on my own.'' Summary Research interests affect teaching and learning at all levels of higher education, and they have an impact on schools as well. Among today's college students are tomorrow's teachers; and if their curricula have been haphazard, they may well know less than they should about the subjects they will teach. If they have been taught in an indifferent fashion, they will be less likely to know how to teach well themselves. "The undergraduate education that intending teachers receive is full of the same bad teaching that litters American high schools," a group of education school deans observes. "If teachers are to know a subject so that they can teach it well, they need to be taught it well." ''We are graduating a generation that knows less and less, ''says Vassar sociology professor~ames Farganis. Preparation for Demands of Graduate Schools Those who do major in the humanities often find that their courses are not conceived as comprehensive treatments of important subjects but as preparation for graduate school. Even though most majors in subjects like English do not go on to work on Ph.D. 's, they may well spend time as undergraduates becoming familiar with critical theoryperhaps more time than they spend reading literature. "I strongly suspect," writes Professor Robert Alter of the University of California at Berkeley, "that many young January 1991 Lynne V. Cheney is Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities . Reprinted here is an excerpt from Tyrannical Machines : A Re- port on Educational Practices Gone Wrong and Our Best Hopes for Setting Them Right, published recently by the NEH. LETTERS.from Santa Fe Page 9 �Special Report: St. John's Aces NEH Survey While National Sample Flunks contract with the National EndowU nder ment for the Humanities, the Gallup The national mean score was 58 percentfailing. Organization last spring tested nearly 700 U.S. college seniors on their knowledge of American and world history and literature . If the students' answers were to be graded , more than half of those tested would have failed . Using the standard "A" to "F" scale , where less than 60 percent-correct score means failure, 55 percent would have received an "F" and another 20 percent a "D. " Just 11 percent would have received an "A" or "B" grade . The national mean score was 58 percent-failing. Appalled by these scores, St. John's decided in April of this year to administer informally the same test to its own seniors, hoping that we would see more heartening results. We did . Twenty-three out of the sixty members of the 1990 senior class volunteered to take the test one afternoon while President Agresto proctored. All of them passed. Only one person got a "C" grade. The other 22 , a full 96 percent, received grades of "A" or " B." The average score for the St. john's seniors tested was 91 percent correct-a grade of ''A. '' The NEH, whose mission it is to promote the study of the humanities, developed this survey to measure the students' command of basic historical and literary knowledge in the last year of their undergraduate education . Each senior was asked 87 questions concerning important historical figures, dates and events as well as significant authors and literary works. Significant gaps in knowledge about history were found among college seniors in a variety of areas. For exampi<;, only two in five students nationally knew that the "shot heard round the world " that signified the start of the American Revolution was fired at Concord , Massachusetts. (Seventy-eight percent of the St. John's seniors answered correctly.) One-fourth were unable to date Columbus' journey within the correct halfcentury. (None of the St. John's students missed this question .) If they were to take the Immigration and Naturalization exam to qualify for U.S . citizenship, the majority of American college seniors would flunk . In the literature section, one part consisted of 19 questions in a multiple choice Page 10 LETTERS from Santa Fe Summary Findings: Performance of College Seniors On History and Literature Questions GRADE A B c D F USA ('lo) St. Johns(%) 2 9 14 20 55 74 22 4 0 0 100 100 M ean Correct 58% 91 % No. in S urvey 691 23 Grading Scale U sed for the Survey: A 90% or more correct 80 % -89 % correct B 70%-79% correct C D 60 %-69 % correct less than 60 % correct F format with one correct answer and three "foils" presented. A majority of the national sample could not link major works by Plato, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton with their authors. Only six in ten college seniors nationally knew that Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales or that Melville wrote Moby Dick. Less than one-half of the national survey of college seniors knew that Jonathan Swift wrote Gulliver's Tra vels and barely a quarter could identify Virgil as the author of the Aeneid. Nationwide , graduating seniors have equal difficulty with classic texts and newer literature. One interesting fact regarding St. John's students was their strong familiarity with literature not directly covered in their four years here . For example, 86 percent knew that Ralph Ellison was the author of Invisible Man when only 12 percent of seniors nationally could make that connection . "While our students here are bright , " Agresto said, "what this experiment tends to show is the singular importance of a rigorous, intensive and sequential program of study-a core curriculum, if you will-to help students see and understand the full sweep of civilized life with all its facets and complications. ' ' -Compiled by Ben Galison J a nuary 1991 �Sample Survey Questions 23. Who wrote Native Son, a novel of black life in Chicago, and Black Boy, which is highly autobiographical? USA(%) v 1 2 3 4 31 23 9 31 6 100 Richard Wright Eldridge Cleaver LeRoiJones MalcolmX Blank I No Answer St. John's (%) 72 18 5 5 0 100 24. A Greek play about a woman who defies a king in order to honor her dead brother is ... USA(%) 1 v 14 49 14 16 7 100 Medea 2 Antigone 3 4 Electra Agamemnon Blank I No Answer St. John's (%) 0 100 0 0 0 100 5 7. The ''shot heard round the world'' was fired at ... USA(%) v 1 Gettysburg 2 Yorktown 3 Concord 4 Bunker Hill Blank I No Answer 21 15 39 23 2 100 St. John's (%) 8 8 77 5 5 100 64. In which time period was the Civil War? USA(%) 1 2 3 v 4 5 6 Before 1750 1750-1800 1800-1850 1850-1900 1900-1950 After 1950 Blank I No Answer ** 15 24 58 2 ** 1 100 St. John's (%) 0 0 14 86 0 0 0 100 All of the St. John) s seniors passed. 96 percent received grades of 'A ) or 'B.) * * Less than one-half of one percent January 199 1 LETTERS from Santa Fe Pa ge 11 �Profile Profile St. john's College is an independent, non-denominational, four-year, co-ed, liberal arts college. •Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. • Curriculum: An integrated, non-elective arts and science program based on reading and discussing , in loosely chronological order, the Great Books of Western Civilization. •Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/faculty ratio is 8: 1. • Degree Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. • Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55 % m en and 45 % women , from 30 states and several foreign countries. Students may transfer between th e Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. • Alumni Careers: Educatio n-2 1 % , b usiness-20 %, law- 10 %, visual and performin g arts-9 %, m edicine-7%, computer science-6 %. • Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary Master' s degree program based o n the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round . . ADDRESSCOR~~CTIO~ REQUESTED � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 12 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, January 1991 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, January 1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-01 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Breneman, David W. Cheney, Lynne V. Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1991-01 Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/dc03caa9abbe434299f03fe70d77f0a7.pdf 419bea4b23a17e928ef567dda1497004 PDF Text Text I~ ,:_ c LETTERSfrom ~1f!a Fe {~ St. John's College, Santa Fe, New Mexico LIBERAL EDUCATION john Agresto M ost essays on liberal education are pompous affairs. They prattle on about how such an education liberates the human spirit, opens our minds to other ways of life, exposes us to higher " values," makes us more sensitive, more humane, more aware, more sparkling. Then follows an often patronizing comment about those who were led into studying the useful rather than liberal arts-perhaps engineering, or computers, or, worst of all, commerce. Finally, they often end with a bit of ostentatious hand-wringing over the nasty character of American culture, which seduces the young away from their native idealism through the workings of those twin devils of modern society, technology and bourgeois materialism. This is pretty much all balderdash. I have never been convinced that a liberal education makes you more moral than you were; it only makes you smarter than you were. It may not make you more sensitive or humane; it only hopes to make you more discerning and knowledgeable about things that matter. It does not necessarily make you more refined; although, poorly pursued, it might make you more pedantic. Its aim was never softness of spirit but toughness of mind. One reason to look again at the meaning and promise of a liberal education is that such an education has fallen on hard times of late. Despite the historic presumption in American colleges that the liberal arts are learning's most sublime expression, the truth is that the liberal arts are in trouble, deep trouble. Last year INSIDE: l r.. ~R Ml\X.. A£~'3oot ;r there were three times as many students graduating with a degree in computer science than in all foreign languages combined. Last year, history, foreign languages and philosophy together graduated 34,000 students, while 24 7 ,000 graduated in business alone. In 1971, half of all fulltime undergraduates were in liberal arts. Today the figures hover around 20 percent for women and 10 percent for men. The truth is that liberal studies comprise a small and dwindling part of American education. So how shall we again promote the liberal arts in contemporary society? More importantly, on what grounds are the liberal arts worth defending? The worst defense, hinted at above, is one that sees the liberal arts as a way of softening the rough edges of our humanity, that teaches us "openness" to each and every "value," that saves us from being overly "judgmental," that frees us from every prejudice and opinion--except, of course, from those most contemporary of prejudices: the love of pluralism and the belief in the egalitarianism of all opinion. Such a defense begins, to be sure, exactly where liberal education always began , with a desire to break the chains of everyday life and the limits of received opinion and see what other cultures, great thinkers, significant events, or powerful literature might teach. But its proper end was always the attempt to ascend from opinion to knowledge, from superstition to truth, from suspended belief to judgment. Once the question s of better and worse are removed from liberal Continued on paf?e 2 . EDUCATI Cl Walt ann L~:.:.z:a SOME #t()IJGHTS ON LIBER~~CATION Ni1ff;) L4f!giulli '' ' .;,? : ~. Fall 1991 .L :(·:. t A COLLEq!,qRADUATE'S J99] RAL �Liberal Education A Message from the President Continued from page I. Dear Friends, Somewhere along the way the idea of what constitutes a liberal education was lost, lost even to educators. Gone , it seems , is the idea of liberal education as a student's exposure to the best that has been thought and said and written. Gone is the idea of liberal education as a coherent and systematic study of the most important areas of human knowledge. Instead, even among those who profess their love for the liberal arts, we are treated to the belief that the liberal arts are akin to an educational smorgasbord-that getting a liberal education means tasting a little of this, savoring a bit of that. How often do we hear that such an education means taking a course in history, perhaps physics for non-majors, an interesting sociology offering, and maybe something in political science, all with the intent of helping you find something to major in. Somewhere along the way, even among its friends, liberal education became confused with incoherence, with dabbling, and with poking around. Once the idea of coherence was dropped from the notion of liberal education , it became commonplace to think that the fatter a college ' s catalogue the more potentially liberal its education . But a fat catalogue doesn ' t guarantee a good education, it only guarantees that there are that many more courses a student will be unable to take. There are, I'm sure, a hundred reasons why liberal education is faring poorly these days . Part of the problem may be economic, since a liberal education costs money without the promise of significant monetary return after graduation. Part of the problem is academic. When fly -by-night fads take over the various disciplines, students flee. If professors declare that "all education is political," or that we cannot escape the confines of class, race or gender, then students soon think that liberal education is silly. If their minds cannot be liberated, at least they can study something lucrative. And, finally, it becomes difficult to teach the liberal arts when those who profess its various disciplines are not themselves liberally educated, thanks to the specialization and research required for today ' s Ph.D. Why institutions insist that in order to be an effective teacher within the liberal arts one needs a research degree in an area of specialization, based on a thesis written on a topic that no one previously thought worthy or interesting, is one of the age ' s great mysteries. Thus, this issue of Letters attempts to lay out what a liberal education is and isn't and what today ' s students may be missing in a college education. education, liberal education dies. If such a newer defense of the liberal arts is not worth pursuing, what can be said of older views? Caution again is in order. There was always a tendency, a strand of argument in the traditional defense of liberal education, that gloried in its irrelevance. Other arts were "useful," the liberal arts were not. Such defenses talked blithely of educating "the whole man," conveniently putting aside the good counsel of friends who said that it was not enough for a man to be good, he must also be good for something. Parts of this older defense were altogether too smug about the intrinsic rather than instrumental value of liberal education. Forms were kept long after the reasons behind them were lost, and the liberal arts opened themselves up to the charge of being little more than a museum culture. Self-consciously disconnected from all utility, the liberal arts seemed less like a preparation for life than a diversion from life. In America, a liberal education modeled on the leisure of European aristocracy was, sooner or later, bound to fail. Democratic societies , Tocqueville rightly predicted, will always prefer the useful to the beautiful, and even require that the beautiful be us eful. Nor does antiquity carry with it the presumption of respect. Indeed, if anything, democracy gives its citizens a sort of instinctive distaste for things merely ancient. Why should we care for Beowulf or Keats? Why pay thousands of dollars for an The comments we have received since we began Letters from Santa Fe have been very encouraging. As I wrote in my first column, one of our aims is to start a conversation among us about the character and quality of education, and we are finding that to be the case. Among those we heard from on our last issue on accreditation was Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. He wrote to say that he appreciated the "ideas for reform of the current process" and that the issue would be "forwarded to the National Capital Advisory Committee on Accreditation and Institutional Eligibility for their review." It will be interesting to watch as this matter is resolved. On a sad note, William R. Beer, professor of Sociology at Brooklyn College, died this summer after a lengthy illness. Professor Beer wrote the article "Accreditation by Quota: The Case of Baruch College" that appeared =; ;" U" July;""' of L,um. O"' regmfa •nd •ymp•~iff Page2 LETTERS from Santa Fe October 1991 �education so proudly disconnected from the world in which we live? The justification for liberal education must not lie in any misplaced faith in the power of English, history , or math to make us more "humane," nor in a belief that such studies have the ability to make us somehow "cultured ," nor in the view that a potential jack of all trades is better than the sure master of one. All that liberal education ever rightly promised was that it would open for us doors of knowledge and imagination that would otherwise be closed. It never promised to make us happier, only smarter. Above all, it tried to make us smarter about things that truly matter. What, then, matters? What is it that we, as human be ings, want to know? We want to know- or at least have some insight intolarge questions of good and bad, of right and wrong. We'd like to know why good people suffer, why great nations fall. We ' d like to know what courage and cowardice, loyalty and treachery, might be. We' d like to know what it is we owe ourselves a nd what we owe our countrymen. We'd like to know what are causes and what are effects. We 'd like to know if ideas can carry any weight, or if everything is done by force. We 'd like to know what the models and standards of an exemplary life might be like. We'd like not to be so easily deceived. Liberal education is hardly alone in offering to answer such questions. Our countries, our parents, our priests, our friends all tell us they have the answer for us, already packaged, ready for the taking. And, to be sure, their answers may be right. But liberal educati on simply offers us the time and distance to consider the answers on all sides, and to say to those around us " Let me think about it, fo r perhaps you haven't told me everything." To reach this goal, the liberal arts have for centuries relied on one great means: Books. Great books. There is where the minds of men lived lo ng afte r their bodies died. Books represent-re-present- the world to us. In literature and drama, treatises, histories and essays, they hold the world up to reflection and for reflection. Paradoxical as it seems at first view, it is none the less true that the conservative act of preserving the books of great literature and the history of great deeds is the first and most radical step in the liberation of an individual's mind . Liberal education mean s th e conservation and transmission of art, of thought, of human acts, and two millennia of radical questions and penetrating, differing answers. No matter how advanced our opinions, no matter how far on the cutting edge of scholarship we are, if our students leave college without knowing some of these books-many of these books-they were cheated. But it was not the rise of modern science, nor some new-found love of money, nor a premature withering of the inquiring mind of students that has turned the liberal arts into a wasteland. More pointedly, the fault is not so much in them as in us , their teachers. The attack on the foundations of liberal education has most effectively been waged from within. Today, for example, the great books of civilized life are often not criticized for being passe as much as for falling on the wrong side of contemporary feeling- for they are, we must note, often male, often white, and often European. Rather than liberation itself, whole sections of the liberal arts now stand accused of being the nasty tools of elitist bondage and oppression. But this is only the latest assault. Even before the ravages of modern ideological ludditism attacked the liberal arts, we had already started to abandon our books. Perhaps C. S. Lewis captured it best- Le conservative act of preserving the books of great literature and the history of great deeds is the first and most radical step in the liberation of an individual's mind. When a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influe nced the Continued on page 4 . October 199 l LETIERSji-om Santa Fe Page 3 �Liberal Education Continued from page 3. We have d e radicalized ideas and turned liberal education from a " tran .s:formative e1·ent into a catalogue cafegoriz.ing and cari calure. or Page4 ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood (especially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is 'the present state of the question.' To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or your behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded. We have for too long trivialized the liberal arts and turned ourselves into pedants by thinking it smarter to learn about books rather than from books. Knowing all about the author-his life, his times, his maladies, his training, and his influencewe have deradicalized ideas and turned Ii beral education from a transform at iv e event into a catalogue of categorizing and caricature. No longer does our heart hurt for Hester Prynne, for we 're busy writing papers on the roots of Transcendentalism. No longer does Hawthorne write to teach; he now writes to be analyzed. My guess is that all this will quickly be labeled "conservative." Fair enough. If liberal education cannot or will not conserve the landmarks of civilization, then it will have failed. When, as we learned in the late 1980s, twothirds of America's high school seniors have no idea when the Civil War took place, a third do not know that Columbus sailed before 1750, two-thirds cannot connect the word "Protestant" to the word "Reformation," and vast majorities have no notion whatever of Chaucer, Whitman, Austin or Dante, then the liberal arts, as the keeper of memory and culture, have failed. LEITERS from Santa Fe But political terms like "conservative" will soon fail to describe any real restoration of liberal education. Ironically, the more we try to conserve for our students the great writers and thinkers of the past the more we increase the pluralism, the diversity, of ideas and perspectives. A public fed only the contemporary does not live in a diverse society but a fully homogeneous one. In today's culture, every restorative act is a liberal act. Indeed, it is also the most radical of acts, since truly great books, ideas, objects, and people-from Socrates to Pascal to Rembrandt to Freud-together teach us a radical cosmopolitanism of the first order. The most reactionary societies are the ones that live only in the present, in the storehouse of accepted opinion, without ever looking sideways or back. If we truly want to liberate minds, we would again present to all our students the great ideas and insights of civilized life; then we would see how liberal education has the singular ability to both liberate and to preserve simultaneously. All in all, this defense of liberal education has centered around the student. It is the opening of today's mind and the quickening of today's soul that has animated what have written above. But that may only be part of the story. Yes, a liberal education exists to do justice to our children and our contemporaries. But liberal education also serves to do justice retrospectively. Tacitus says of history that it serves to recreate the past so that the great things that men have done can be praised and the wicked held in eternal contempt. If that is true, then the function of liberal education is more than erudition, utility, insight, or even enlightenment. We keep alive the works of the past because we owe it to those who did great deeds never to forget. So, in the end, the restoration of humane learning may not simply be an act of culture or intelligence, but of justice. This essay is taken from an article printed in the Spring 1988 issue of the Boston College Magazine. October 1991 �ACollege Graduate's Despair Max A. Boot W ith this year ' s graduation season drawing to a close , we won't have to listen to many more commencement speakers. Usually, they tell the graduating seniors how lucky they were to spend four years acquiring wisdom. As a graduating senior at UC Berkeley, I have a somewhat different perspective- one that wasn ' t heard often at this year ' s commencement ceremonies but that contains a great deal more truth about the state of American higher education today. I have done relatively well academically at Berkeley. Even so I don't think I've received a true liberal education- at least not in the way that a well-educated man of the 19th century would have understood it. Back then , a university was supposed to provide nourishment for mind, body and soul. American colleges stopped catering to the latter two long ago, when mandatory attendance in chapel and at physical education classes was abolished. Now , Berkeley and other leading research universities have even stopped feeding students' minds . What I've missed is an education that integrates philosophy, history , literature and the other humanities into a coherent whole. Part of the fault is my own: I did not seek out some classes that I should have. But a large share of the burden lies with the university, which lacks a core curriculum-for example, "Great Books"-that could provide a general education. Instead, Berkeley, like many other large universities, offers a host of overly specialized courses that seem to have little connection. The history department offers a class on Theodore Roosevelt; English has a course on science fiction; philosophy offers a class on Hegel. That ' s it. Almost no courses attempt to bridge the gulf between these areas. Those that should-that is, introductory courses aimed at freshmen- have an added drawback: They are taught by inaccessible professors in giant auditoriums before thousands of bored students. The man responsible for this deplorable state of affairs is Clark Kerr , UC president during the 1960s and one of the most influential figures of post-World War II higher education . Kerr dreamed that the college would become all things to all people-a October 1991 " multiversity." Instead, it wound up serving almost everybody inadequately. Nobody is sure what the university's mission is anymore: Is it to educate elite students? To create a social melting pot? To conduct graduate-level research? Partisans of all three viewpoints have waged intermittent battles on the Berkeley campus for decades , leaving all the players profoundly dissatisfied. Undergraduates are therefore denied the opportunity to pursue a comprehensive curriculum . Instead, they are left , like shoppers in a giant supermarket , to wander the aisles, picking products at random, never sure that their selections will add up to a nutritious meal. Laissez faire may work in the economy, but it's no way to run a university. This loss of mission has also allowed a weird collection of nuts and cranks to assume prominent positions at Berkeley, as they have at other leading U. S. colleges. Deconstructionists in the English department teach that words have no intrinsic meaning . Revisionists in the history department teach that the Constitution was the result of a capitalist cabal. Newly minted Ph.D. 's in the ethnic-studies field teach that America has waged genocidal war against its racial minorities for centuries. Instructors in the "Peace and Conflict Studies" department teach strategies for nonviolent protest. A sociology professor instructs students on the "plantation system " in professional sports today. This is education? Thankfully, I've been able to avoid most of these professors with an ax to grind. I have managed to study almost exclusively with professors who believe in oldfashioned academic standards and the importance of Western civili zation. But most students don ' t fare as well. The lucky ones merely miss the chance to be educated. The unlucky ones are indoctrinated by unscrupulous lecturers. It ' s safe to say , then , that the reality of college education today is a far cry from the dreamy land of learning and higher thinking described by commencement speakers. Just ask any recent graduate. Laissez. faire may work in tile economy, but it's no way to ru 11 a u 11 il'e rs i ty . Max A. Boot, a history major, graduated from UC Berkeley and is currently a graduate student at Yale . This op ed appeared in the Los Angeles Times. LETTERS from Santa Fe Page 5 �EDUC I t w_as once the cust~m in the great universities to propound a senes of theses which, as Cotton Mather put it, the student had to "defend manfully." I should like to revive this custom by propounding a thesis about the state of education in this troubled age. The thesis which I venture to submit to you is as follows: That during the past forty or fifty years those who are responsible for education have progressively removed from the curriculum of studies the Western culture which produced the modern democratic state; That the schools and colleges have, therefore, been sending out into the world men who no longer understand the creative principle of the society in which they must live; That, deprived of their cultural tradition, the newly educated Western men no longer possess in the form and substance of their own minds and spirits, the ideas, the premises, the rationale, the logic, the method, the values or the deposited wisdom which are the genius of the development of Western civilization; That the prevailing education is destined, if it continues, to destroy Western civilization and is in fact destroying it; That our civilization cannot effectively be maintained where it still flourishes, or be restored where it has been crushed, without the revival of the central, continuous, and perennial culture of the Western world; And that, therefore, what is now required in the modem educational system is not the expansion of its facilities or the specific reform of its curriculum and administration but a thorough reconsideration of its underlying assumptions and of its purposes. Universal and compulsory modem education was established by the emancipated democracies during the 19th century. " No other sure foundation can be devised," said Thomas Jefferson, "for the preservation of freedom and happiness." Yet as a matter of fact during the 20th century the generations trained in these schools have either abandoned the ir liberties or they have not known, until the last desperate moment, how to defend them. The schools were to make men free. They have been in operation for some sixty or seventy years and what was expected of them they have not done. The plain fact is that the graduates of the modern schools are the actors in the catastrophe whic h has befallen our civilization. Those who are responsible for modem education- for its controlling philosopy-are answerable for the results. They have determined the formation of the mind and education of modern men. As the tragic events unfold, they cannot evade their responsibility by talking about the crimes and follies of politicians, businessmen, labor leaders, lawyers, editors, and generals. They have conducted the schools and colleges and they have e du cated th e politicia ns, businessmen , labor leade rs , Page 6 lawyers, editors and generals. What is more they have educated the educators. Modern education is based on a denial that it is necessary or useful or desirable for the schools and colleges to continue to transmit from generation to generation the religious and classical culture of the Western world. It is, therefore, much easier to say what modern education rejects than to find out what modern education teaches. Modern education rejects and excludes from the curriculum of necessary studies the whole religious tradition of the West. It abandons and neglects as no longer necessary the study of the whole classical heritage of the great works of great men. Thus, there is an e normous vacuum where until a few decades ago there was the substance of education. And with what is that vacuum filled : it is filled with th e elective, eclectic, the specialized, th e accidental and incidental improv isations and spontaneous curiosities of teachers and students. There is no common faith, no common body of principle, no common body of knowledge, no common moral and intellectual discipline. Yet, the graduates of these modern schools are expected to form a civilized community. They are expected to govern themselves. They are expected to have a social conscience. They are expected to arrive by discussion at common purposes. When one realizes that they have no common culture is it astounding that they have no common purpose? That they worship fal se gods? That only in war do they unite? That in the fierce struggle for existence they are tearing Western society to pieces? They are the graduates of an educational system in which, though attendance is compulsory, the choice of the subject matter of education is left to the imagination of college presidents, trustees and professors, or even to the whims of the pupils themselves. We have established a system of education in which we insist that while everyone must be educated, yet there is nothing in particular that an educated man must know. For it is said that since the invention of the steam engine we live in a new era, an era so radically different from all preceding ages that the cultural tradition is no longer relevant, is in fact misleading. I submit to you that this is a rationalization, th at this is a pretended reason for the educational void which we now call education. The real reason, I venture to suggest, is that we reject the religious and classical heritage, first, because to master it requires more effort than we are willing to compel ourselves to make, and, second, because it creates issues that are too deep and LETTERS ji·om Santa Fe Fall 1991 �l ~TERN CIVfllZATION ,ppmann · too contentious to be faced with equanimity. We have abolished the old curriculum because we are afraid of it, afraid to face any longer in a modern democratic society the severe discipline and the deep, disconcerting issues of the nature of the universe, and of man's place in it and of his destiny. By separating education from the classical religious tradition the school cannot train the pupil to look upon himself as an inviolable person because he is made in the image of God. These very words, though they are the noblest words in our language, now sound archaic. The school cannot look upon society as a brotherhood arising out of a conviction that men are made in a common image. The teacher has no subject matter that even pretends to deal with the elementary and universal issues of human destiny. The graduate of the modern school knows only by accident and I I by hearsay whatever wisdom mankind has come to in regard to the nature of men and their destiny. For the vital core of the civilized tradition of the West is by definition excluded from the curriculum of the modern, secular, democratic school. The school must sink, therefore, into being a mere training ground for personal careers. Its object must then be to equip individual careerists and not to form fully civilized men . The utility of the schools must then be measured by their success in equipping specialists for successful rivalry in the pursuit of their separate vocations. Thus there is a cultural vacuum, and this cultural vacuum was bound to produce, in fact it has produced, progressive disorder. For the more men have become separated from the spiritual heritage which binds them together, the more has education become egoist, careerist, specialist and asocial. In abandoning the classical religious culture of the West the schools have ceased to affirm the central principle of the Western philosophy of life-that man ' s reason is the ruler of his appetites. They have reduced reason to the role of servant to man's appetites . The working philosophy of the emancipated democracies is, as a celebrated modern psychologist has put it, that "the instinctive impulses determine the end of all activities. .. and the most highly developed mind is but the instrument by which those impulses seek their satisfaction." The reduction of reason to an instrument of each man's personal career must mean also that education is emptied of its content. For what the careerist has to be taught are the data that he may need in order to succeed. Thus all subjects of study are in principle of equal value. There are no subjects which all men belonging to the same civilization need to study. In the realms October 199 l of knowledge the student elects those subjects which will presumably equip him for success in his career; for the student there is then no such thing as a general order of knowledge which he is to possess in order that it may regulate his specialty. And just as the personal ambition of the student rather than social tradition determines what the student shall learn, so the inquiry and the research of the scholar becomes more and more disconnected from any general and regulating body of knowledge. For what enables men to know more than their ancestors is that they start with a knowledge of what their ancestors have already learn ed. They are able to do advanced experiments which increase knowledge because they do not have to repeat the elementary experiments. It is tradition which brings them to the point where advanced experimentation is possible. This is the meaning of tradition. This is why a society can be progressive only if it conserves its tradition. The notion that every problem can be studied as such with an open and empty mind, without preconception, without knowing what has already been learned about it, must condemn men to a chronic childishness. For no man , and no generation of men, is capable of inventing for itself the arts and sciences of a high civilization. No one, and no one generation, is capable of rediscovering all the truths men need , of developing sufficient knowledge by applying a mere intelligence , no matter how acute, to mere observation, no matter how accurate. The men of any generation, as Bernard of Chartres put it , are like dwarfs seated on the shoulders of giants. If we are to "see more things than the ancients and things more distant" it is "due neither to the sharpness of our sight nor the greatness of our stature" but "simply because they have lent us their own. " For individuals do not have the time, the opportunity or the energy to make all the experiments and to discern all the significance that have gone into the making of the whole heritage of civilization. In developing knowledge men must collaborate with their ancestors. Otherwise they must begin, not where their ancestors arrived but where their ancestors began. If they exclude the tradition of the past from the curricula of the schools they make it necessary for each generation to repeat the errors rather than to benefit by the successes of its predecessors. Having cut him off from the tradition of the past, modern secular education has isolated the individual. It has made him a careerist- without social connection- who must make his way-without benefit of man 's wisdom- through a struggle in which there is no principle of order. This is the uprooted and incoherent modern "free man" .. . . This essay is reprinted in part from Essays Yesterday and Today , John A. Lester, editor, Harcourt , Brace and Company, 1943. LETTERS/ram Santa Fe Page 7 �Some Thoughts on Liberal Education Nino Langiulli I T,wsewho believe that liberal education is a hymn or ''celebration <~f' l~fe" have understood neither liberal cduration nor lift•. Page 8 t is not uncommon these days to hear the term "survivor" used as a term of praise. Now l submit that persons educated in the liberal tradition wo uld question the usage. They will wonder whether "survival" is a virtue and therefore worth y of praise . How the s urvivor survived would be crucial. Mere survival is not a virtue because it may be that survival was achieved by treading upon others and leaving behind a long list of betrayals. Sometimes, as Sidney Hook noted, the worst thing that can be said of people is that they survived, since their survival has been at th e co s t of everyone and everything else. De pending on h ow th e y s urviv e, pe ople wri re for them selv es e ither an e pitaph of infam y or one of glory . Those who prai se s urvi vors merel y for s urviv a l write for themselves an epitaph of mindlessness. Consider a lso the orgy of sen tim e nta lity passing for morality, such events as the " Hands Across Ameri ca" phe nomenon or th e " Live Aid" and " Farm Aid" concerts. Again those e du cated in the tradition will find the se express ions of pity- whose purveyors wi ll grace with t he na me "compassio n" -to be meager substitutes for the practice of the moral and theological virtues. They will regard these public displays of pity as mawkish and even the money raised from these displays as fleeting as paper in the wind when compared to acts of inte lli gence, co urage, fai rn ess and c h arity demand ed in th e ord in ar y and somet im es extraordinary events of dail y life. What I am suggesting with these examples is that the tradition of liberal education commits us to excellence. It is the systematic cultivation of th ose thin gs whi c h make hum an beings excellent: reason and the freedom grounded in that reason. It is not a reflection or an echo of fas hi onabl e th eo ri es o r actio n s , of pop psy chology or soc io logy o r a porr idge of cliches, buzzwords, and acronyms whi ch can LETTERS/mm Santa Fe openly deaden reason, deaden moral sensibility and deaden freedom. Liberal education consists in the formation of a proper harmony of intelligence, character, and taste- a harmony which is sometimes vaguely expressed in that quaint metaphor " well rounded. " ft does not consi s t in th e production of dilett ante s or esthetes who believe that their education was aimed at holding their own in cocktail party discussions, or at mastering the Sunday N ew York Times or who believe th at t h ey are liberall y e duc a te d beca us e th ey have subscriptions to the opera, the ballet, or the museums. The tradition of liberal education is just as resistant to producing vol upt uaries w ith ou t c h aracte r as it is to produc in g technicians or specialists without imag ination. Indeed, it is a preparation for the terrors of life so that when fai lure or even tragedy occurs, one can face it and not be destroyed by it. Those who be lieve that liberal education is a hymn or "celebration of life" have understood neither liberal education nor life. If, h owe ver, liberal edu cati o n seek s to develop free and rational men and women who are concerned with the pursuit of knowledge, and who are conscious of their moral, religious, and social obligations, or to put it another way, if liberal education is the formation of persons ca p a ble of respo n s ibl e inte llec tu a l se lfdetcrm ination, then th e test will be not only what they recognize as worthy of pursuit but a lso wh a t th e y deem n ecessa ry to res ist. October 1991 �Consequently, the pursuit of knowledge , of power, of wealth, of pleas ure, of honor will always be subject to the moderating rule of reason. Excess and defect will be avoided. Freedom will consist both in their mastery over their opinions and over their passions, either of the erotic or the aggressive kind. Mastery over opinions will show itself in the ability to explain them and to account for them. Dominion over passions will show itself in such an expression of them that an absolute "letting go" or a "letting it all hang out" will not be permitted. In their relationships with others, liberally educated persons will give and accept service graciously. They will pursue learning together, enjoying the company of like-minded , independent, and confident people . They will avoid or try to keep under control those people who know only two postures-at one ' s feet or at one's throat. They will surely avoid those postures themselves. Rather they will give respect and friendship, not flattery. They will have learned to respect ordinary, plodding, decent humanity which they acknowledge not only in thems e lves but cherish in others. This ordinariness, as Eva Brann has said, is not the opposite of excellence, nor is the respect for it a mythologizing and romanticizing of the "common man ." Rather it is the ground from which excellence grows . The true opposite of this ordinarinessactually there are two of them and they are both monstrosities- are barbarism and intellectualism . The first is the embodiment of mindless passion; the other is the abstraction of passionless mind . Liberal education aims at resisting both of these opposites. Needless to say, the members of the tradition of liberal education are also united in their resistance to tyranny which is the perennial danger to liberty in general and to liberal education in particular. It should come as no October 1991 surprise that modern tyranny, because it has at its di sposal technologies and ideologies, threatens to become what no earlier tyranny ever became , according to Leo Strauss , homogeneous, perpetual , and universal. The members of the tradition mu st be constantly vigilant to defend the elementary and unobtrusive conditions of liberty. They must remind themselves that the face of tyranny is not that of a devil but rather of an angel. It does and will come speaking about its concern for the poor, for the oppressed races, the oppressed classes, even for the oppressed sex. It will appear to be sincere and devotedsacrificial to the point of martyrdom-for its cause. ft will wipe away every tear from every eye. But when the mask of sincerity melts away, the face of tyranny will soon enough reveal itself for what it is-a contorted grimace of the lust for power. In fine, the tradition of liberal education is more than the study of languages, mathematics , history, the sciences, philosophy, and theology. It is a training through those disciplines-in critical reason and freedom- in excellence. It is liberation from ignorance, from baseness , from vulgarity. It demands from its adherents a complete break with the fashionable ideas of the careless intellectual and resistance to the vulgarity and terror of the barbarian. Since the modern tyrant is the incarnation of both the intellectual and the barbarian, it is the tradition of liberal education-save the power and will of God-that will offer the surest resistance to tyranny. Ti1e members of the tradition r~f' liberal education are al.'\'O united in their resistan r_·e to tyram.n; whirl! is the p(Jrnwial dan:!tT tn to /; rnl edu cation in particular. Nino Langiulli is professor of philosophy at St. Francis College, Brooklyn Heights , N.Y. This piece , taken from a speech Mr. Langiulli gave when he was presented with the Alumni Association ' s Distinguished Faculty Award. originally appeared in the fall 1986 issue of Terrier, the College's alumni magazine. LETTERS/ram Santa Fe Page 9 �The Aim of Liberal Education Leon Kass L <~l For the aim liberal education is other than the advancement of the sum of human learning or the discovery of new truths or the growth of knowledge from more to more. Page 10 et us begin by distinguishing liberal education from other sorts of education. Let us set aside that part of higher education which prepares one for one's future career, whether in the professions of law, medicine, divinity, engineering, or business or in scholarship or scientific research . In these cases , the mind is specifically prepared in the basic concepts and methods, either of practical arts , say, of legal reasoning or of healing, or of specialized investigation, in each case according to the accepted canons of the profession or discipline. Bodies of accumulated knowledge are transmitted, skills are acquired, and the particular methods of problemsolving are learned through practice. Expertise, competence, mastery are the marks of accomplishment. I do not for a moment discount the importance of such achievement and such training; but it is not liberal education. True, medicine or law or biology or politics can be studied in a liberal way, but when taught professionally or pre-professionally they are not. True, scholarly research can be an aid to liberal education- and vice versa-but the training or preparation of future scholars is not what liberal education is about or for. For the aim of liberal education is other than the advancement of the sum of human learning or the discovery of new truths or the growth of knowledge from more to more. But neither is liberal education just the transmission of accumulated knowledge, the pouring of old learning into new receptacles, or even the initiation of new members into the great tradition, understood as tradition. It is, of course, hard to call someone well educated who is ignorant of the Bible and the writings of Homer and Plato, Shakespeare and Locke, R9usseau and Tolstoy, Newton and Einstein , Darwin and Freud. Indeed, because of their depth, range, and power, these writings are the best materials for the practice of liberal education. But desirable though it is to know one's intellectual forebears, to know them as part of the tradition-or, in the current jargon, as part of the so-called history of ideas-is only to know about them and about what they thought , not to think with them. The history of thought, however valuable, is not itself thinking. And to regard the so-called tradition as authoritative, to accept its authority because of its venerability, is to give over the activity of thinking here and now. The same must also be said for the docile ingestion and unassimilated retention of the fruits of contemporary sciences, whether received authoritatively from written textbooks or even from LETTERS from Santa Fe the mouths of Nobel Laureates. I would also distinguish liberal education from those aspects of education which aspire to or attain a broadening of views, an elevating of sensibilities and tastes, or even the sharpening of intellectual skills. These are, of course, all fine things. It is good to be exposed to and to know about many variations in culture, beliefs, and human activities. But learning is more than exposure, and collecting broad variations does not mean gaining deeper understanding. Liberal education is more than general education. It is also more than aesthetic and cultural enrichment. Our tastes and sensibilities can certainly stand refinement: It should be one of our goals to learn to recognize and to love the difference between what is noble and beautiful and what is vulgar and ugly. But even the love of Homer and Mozart or the growing taste for the beautiful in nature on in human character is not yet what I mean. Liberal education also goes beyond requiring the skills of careful reading, writing, listening, speaking, arguing, calculating, looking, and experimenting. These skills- often called the liberal arts-sharpen the mind and are invaluable as instruments for its proper work. But the skills alone are insufficient. When severed from the true work of the free mind, pre-occupation with skills can be enslaving, a kind of mental gymnastics which tones one ' s mental muscles and swells one's vanity, but which in fact is useless and vain. What is the point of knowing "how to think" if one never seriously engages in thinking? What, then, could be left for the aim of liberal education, if we exclude professional training, research and scholarship, general broadening and culture, the arts of learning, and familiarity with the intellectual tradition? I have already hinted at my answer: Not the adding of new truths to the world, not the transmission of old truths to the young, but the cultivation in each of us of the disposition actively to seek the truth and to make the truth our own. More simply, liberal education is education in and for thoughtfulness. It awakens, encourages, and renders habitual thoughtful reflection about weighty human concerns, in quest of what is simply true and good. This piece is taken from the early part of a speech Leon Kass delivered on September 25, 1981, to the entering freshmen at the University of Chicago as the annual Orientation Week "Aims of Education" address. October 1991 �What are the Liberal Arts The followinf.! piece is taken from a St. John's College brochure for interested high school students. L iterally, "liberal" comes from the Latin root "liber" which means free. There is a certain kind of intellectual freedom gained from studying liberal arts which helps one form sound and independent judgments and allows one to be free from accepting currently modish but not necessarily sound opinions. Another kind of freedom is the freedom from specialization. The liberal arts student is not concentrating on a particular field and is thus able to make connections between different disciplines. The world isn ' t seen only in engineering terms or accounting terms. The student is able to rely on an analogy, illumination, or insight from one subject to explain something in another subject. The primary function of the liberal arts has always been to bring about an awareness of the forms that are embodied in combinations of words and in numbers so that they become means of understanding . Traditionally , the liberal arts were seven in number: grammar, rhetoric, log ic- th e arts of language; and arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomythe arts of mathematics. In more contemporary terms, the liberal arts bring to light what is involved in the use of words and numbers in all kinds of discursive thought, in counting, measuring, deducing, demonstrating, analyzing, thinking, writing, speaking, and listening. They are the arts of judgments and decisions. It is, however, not subject matter alone that determines the character of the liberal arts, for the way in which a formal discipline, a subject matter, is taken up is decisive. The art of questioning, and of seeing oneself differently as a result, is central to a liberal arts education. October 1991 It is not enough to acquire knowledge and to develop facility in the arts of language and mathematics. There must be a constant questioning, a search for the grounding and consequences of propositions, truths, and beliefs. We must ask the persistent questions of human existence, which have relevance to the contemporary problems with which we have to deal. Only to the extent that we honestly face such philosophical questions will we be able to confront our future in a meaningful way. As knowledge advances and the fundamental outlook of civilization changes over the centuries, these arts of understanding remain, in one form or another, indispensable. They enable men and women win to knowledge of the world around them and knowledge of themselves in this world and to use that knowledge with wisdom. Under their guidance men and women can free themselves from the wantonness of prejudice and the narrowne ss of beaten path s. Under their discipline they can acquire the habit of listening to reason in others and demanding reasons in themselves. A genuinely conceived liberal arts curriculum cannot avoid aiming at these most far reaching of all human goals. Through both curricula and pedagogy it is hoped that a liberal education will impart such stimulus that students will become their own teachers for the rest of their lives. It has been a firm and well-supported belief that students who have begun to seek and understand the arts that are common to all disciplines, who have learned to be their own teachers, and who have a beginning awareness of the fullness and variety of human experience will necessarily be the citizens best equipped to deal intelligently with the particular professions they choose and with the human situations in which they find themselves. LEITERS/rom Santa Fe Through both curricula and pedagogy it is hoped that a liberal education will impart such stimulus that students will become their own teachers for the rest of their lives. Page II �Profile St. John's College is an independent, non-sectarian.four-year, liberal arts college. •founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted l 937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. •Curriculum : An integrated, non-elective arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western Civilization. •Approach : Tutorials, laboratori~s. and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/faculty ratio is 8: I. • Degree Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. •Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 undergraduate students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 46% men and 54% women, from 34 states and several foreign countries. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. • Alumni Careers: Education-21 %, business-20%, law-IO%, visual and performing arts-9%, medicine-7%, science and engineering-?%, computer science-6%, writing and publishing-5%. • Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary Master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 12 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Fall 1991 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Fall 1991 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Boot, Max, 1968- Langiulli, Nino Kass, Leon Lippmann, Walter, 1889-1974 Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1991_Fall Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/a621ba954e887f233265b45f7ac1076b.pdf 099b585e26b8f6f3d7187fe1376a6375 PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College-Santa Fe. New Mexico Summer 1992 ONENESS AND OTHERNESS h e problem with sending out a free newsletter is that nobody writes and complains when we skip an issue. Maybe nobody noticed . ... In any event, it's true. We have been so caught up with day-to-day activities at the college that we've been hard pressed to find the time to get out a spring issue. So, unless we squeeze in an extra over the summer, all faithful readers this year will have to bear with one less copy. In this issue I wanted to return to a topic that has been something of a theme, a thread, throughout many of these Letters. I've e ntitled it, somewhat awkwardly, "Oneness and Otherness" in higher education. Traditional liberal education is always being called to task for something. We have, historically, been accused of being insufficiently vocational, insufficiently "relevant," insufficiently research driven. Today, as everyone who cares about the issue knows, traditional liberal education is judged insufficiently diverse, insufficiently multicultural. Unlike some of the earlier attacks on the liberal arts, this criticism grows mainly from within; it rarely comes from the public. (The phrase "dead, white, European males" is not one that comes readily to the lips of the man on the street, but it's all the rage in the halls of ivy.) Despite the overall wrongheadedness of the criticism and the political ends for which it is being used, there is a grain of truth in the critique, one that has to be understood. The truth seems to be this: A liberal education should have two great goals--to teach us something about ourselves and our own and, additionally, to teach us things not our own, things other, things strange, but things nonetheless potentially true or beautiful. On one hand, we need to have a better understanding of who we are and why we might be that way - we need to know something about the Greeks, the Bibl.e, the principles of democratic government. But, above that, we also need to know what ·we are not, have never experienced, have never thought of. All decent highe r education is both an education in identity, in oneness; and, at the same time, an inquiry into things strange, things diverse, things other. Errors happen on both sides of the equation. On the side of sameness, we can spend too long looking at o urselves unquestioningly; learning about o ur civiliza- ... �tion, nation or self uncritically; seeing what we are without asking why we are or what we might be. Today, however, the real danger stems from the other side. The mad rush to "diversify" rarely means the thoughtful incorporation of new material as much as the trashing of the old for no better reason than that it's old, or "European." It rarely means the addition of new insights as often as it means the "representative" inclusion of the work of different groups, as if real education means not knowing the best but looking at the samples. And, contrary to its own standard, "diversity" is rarely diverse. Most often it is simply a way of tearing down the culture not with radical new ideas but with ideas comfortable to the radicals. The truth is that traditional liberal education is still the most radical endeavor around. To be sure, it teaches us some things about ourselves, about w ho we are and the reasons we might have for being that way. It also offers us the opportunity to see the world differently, to see it w ith other eyes, and from the perspective of other times. Not only through literature and history but also through science, mathematics and languages, do we learn to see the world anew. As an example, in the center of this newsletter I have reprinted the course of study here at St. John's. If one wants to learn about one's own, and things not one's own, I'm not sure those works could be improved upon. THE TRUTH SEEMS TO BE THIS : A LIBERAL EDUCATION SHOULD HAVE TWO GREAT GOALS-TO TEACH US SOMETHING ABOUT OURSELVES AND OUR OWN AND, ADDITIONALLY, TO TEACH US THINGS NOT OUR OWN, THINGS Sincerely, OTHER, THINGS STRANGE, BUT THINGS NONETHELESS POTENT/ALLY TRUE John Agresto page t wo OR BEAUTIFUL. L ETTERS fro m Santa F e S u mm er 1 99 2 �THE MARRIAGE OF PC AND DIVERSITY by John Agresto President St. John's College, Santa Fe / said last time that "political correctness" is a dangerous but still limited problem at most institutions of higher learning. Yet, every time I open the papers it seems that another university has capitulated. Like the Great Plague, it destroys the high as well as the low, the renowned as easily as the most humble. Today, I offer you the University of Toronto. It appears clear from the Toronto example that what makes political correctness a potent force in higher e ducation is not a universal belief in some type of economic theory or political structure but, rather, in the simple correctness of the academy's new-found belief in diversity and multicultura lism. Political correctness has very little to do with politics and everything to do with culture. The beliefs demanded are, to be certain, new be liefs - who thought, five years ago, that multiculturalism would be seen as the essential principle of e ducation? Yet, institutions have embraced it with all the fanaticism of new converts. Now, as with all new waves of orthodoxy, the skeptical might well b e advised to be careful rather than critical. As I have argued in previous Letters, this new rage for diversity as a defining principle of e ducation Summer 1992 has already undermined the traditional belief that important knowledge is necessarily transcultural and transracial. For instance, Mozart and Plato, dead white men though they be, might nonetheless be fitting for all students, white or black, male or female, to know. The rage for diversity and multiculturalism has also seriously eroded the old principle that a curriculum should be built around a selection of works and authors that are compelling, perceptive or informative. Often, now, it is not the best or most challenging that must be taught, but the contrary - the most representative and the most culturally comfortable. But, in addition to its rejection of the traditional principles of liberal education, the rage for multiculturalism has now become the reason, the warrant, to enforce codes of political correctness. For, if the celebration of diversity becomes the aim of education, then those professors whose courses are challenges to the easy belief in the equal value and dignity of all notions, cultures and lifestyles are the ones who, bluntly, are in the way. Now, to the University of Toronto. The newest draft of the university's Statement on Human Rights has some items that are, at best, peculiar and, at worst, truly dangerous. It declares, for instance, that it is "a central element of its mission" to educate individuals prepared to work to remove "barriers and inequities" faced by "members of marginalized groups of any sort. " It modifies its commitment to academic freedom with the condition that the university must nonetheless act "to prevent or remedy" discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation ... marital status, family status, LETTERS from Santa Fe receipt of public assistance or record of offense." Most ominously, however, it declares its aspiration to be a community that "embraces teaching, research and other activities in a manner that acknowledges as their context a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic and multi-racial society that is represented in its teachers and learners and that informs the subject-matter of many of its disciplines." As Thomas Pangle, professor of political economy at Toronto, wrote in objection to this document, "[i]t allows for the view that the university is to be seen as not merely an extension, but as an indoctrinating tool, of the reigning intellectual and social dogmas and the currrently fashionable crusade of multiculturalism. " Moreover, the document "limit[s] and confin[es] academic freedom, not on the basis of scientific or scholarly merit but on the basis of conformity to what somebody thinks is a 'manner' that 'acknowledges ' (and the term in context clearly means 'legitimates') a certain type of political society .... " Academics may teach what they will about the causes of war, the structure of sentences, the irrelevance of religion, whatever. But if their courses fail to support and affirm the latest craving for multiculturalism , if their subjects are not "informed" by multiculturalism, and if their teachers and students do not themselves "represent" multiculturalism, then, in the words of the current Secretary of Education, they will soon be met by the universities ' diversity police. No matter how ridiculed, derided and maligned political corr~ctness may be in the public press and public eye, so long as it claims diversity as its ally it will continue to capture, say, five colleges a week. page three �EXCERPTS FROMGIANTS AND DWARFS by Allan Bloom Since I first addressed the issue of relativism , I ha ve learned with what moral fervor it is protected and its opposite, ethnocentrism, attacked. This fervor does not propose an investigation but a crusade. The very idea that we ought to look for standards by which to judge ourselves is scandalous. You simply h a v e to beli eve in the current understanding of openness if you are to believe in democracy and be a dec ent person. Carrying this thought furthe r, however, one discovers that if there are no transcultural values, our reaction is ethnocentric. And the one thing we know absolutely is that ethnocentrism is bad. So we have painted ourselves into a corner. And it is impo rtant to unde rstand this. When little childre n speak o f h ow bad e thnocentrism is , I know that they have been propagandized . It is too complicated a thin g for them to understand . Condemning ethnocentrism is frequ e ntl y a s ign o f inte llectual, altho ug h n ot n ecessarily moral , progress. But it is only a first step. To recognize that some of the things o ur c ulture believes are not true imposes o n us the duty of finding out which are true and w hich are not, a business altogether mo re diffipag e f o ur THE FERVOR AGAINST ETHNOCENTRISM DOES NOT PROPOSE AN INVESTIGATION BUT A CRUSADE. cult than the wholesale jettisoning of all that one thought o ne knew. Su ch je ttisoning always e nds up w ith the selective and thoughtless return to old ethnocentric ideas o n the basis of what one needs rig ht now, of w hat pleases one, of pure feeling. But to tra vel one must sp e nd a little time thinking a bo ut one's compass as we ll as the land one wishes to reach. This problem was ni ce ly illustrate d by the case of Salma n Rushdie , a uthor o f The Satanic Verse, w hich insulted the Muslim faith and occasioned the Ayatollah Kh o m e ini 's comma nd to h ave Rushdie killed in England, o r w he rever he is to be found. There was genera l s h ock throughout the Western world at this, and writers, whose ox was being gored, rushed LETTERS f r o m Santa F e before the TV cameras to denounce this blatant attack on the inviolable principle of freedom of sp eech. All well and good. But the kicker is that most of these very same writers have for many years been teaching that we must respect the integrity of other cultures and that it is arrogant ethnocentrism to judge other cultures according to our standards, which are themselves merely products of our culture. In this case, however, all such reasoning were forgotten, and freedom of speech was treated as though its claims to transcultural status, its claims to be valid eve rywhere and always, are true . A few days earlier such claims were treated as instruments of American imperialis m ; miraculously they were transformed into absolutes. Leaving aside the intellectua I incohere nce he re , this floating means to say we do not know from moment to moment what we w ill do whe n there are conflic ts, whic h the re inevitably will be, b etween human rights and the imperatives of the culturally sacred. You may have noticed that the re has recently been silence about the case; this is partially because it is an embarrassment, and our convictions are weak . The serious argume nts tha t established the right of freedom of speech were m ade b y philosop he rs- most n o tably Locke, Milton, and Milland o ur contemporaries d o n o t return to them to refresh their memo ries and to see whether the argume nts are really good. And this is due not only to laziness but also to the current attack o n the very idea of such study. Allan Bloom, Giants and Dwarfs, (New York; Simon and Schuster, 1990). Su m rn re r 1 992 �EDUCATION AND HUMAN COMMONNESS by Nancy Buchenauer Director, Graduate Institute St. John's College, Santa Fe 5 t. John's College is not a community of learning exactly like other academic institutions. Here we are confident e nough to say that there are certain books which we think every educated person should read, and we suppose that these books can be read together fruitfully by people of w idely different ages and backgrounds. This makes us a community, an institution believing in what people have in common in a more radical way. Nevertheless, we should be thinking about the bases of our confidence in human commonness, about why we think we can learn from one another. The most obvious area of commonness that we share is reason. When we read one of Euclid's geometrical theorems, we are all convinced by it in the same way, follow ing the same chain of arguments. At first sight Euclid provides us w ith the best model for holding conversations, because at every step reasons are given which show the persons we are talking to why we think what we think. In mathe matics we humans are in a position of equality with respect to one another, and the only authority we acknowledge is the working of our rational m inds. But, mathe matics aside, getting along w ith one another, our belief about God, the purpose and meaning Summ e r 1 9 92 .. ... WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THE BASES OF OUR CONFIDENCE IN HUMAN COMMONNESS, ABOUT WHY WE THINK WE CAN LEARN FROM ONE ANOTHER. of human life are the subject of endless controversy. Can talking about these things do more than reaffirm o ur differences? Can we still learn and profit from one another's thoughts' A kind of faith is demanded of us he re . A book is a p lace w here we L E TTER S frum Sa nt a Fe lose ourselves and our familiar worlds, and open ourselves to the unknown and the new, to the possibility of changes of all sorts. Why should we venture into such dangerous territory? Perhaps because it is necessary to lose ourselves first to find out what really is our own and who we really are. Perhaps, too, we can act to shake each other loose from our supposed certainties so that we can come to see truth for the first time. It must be for such a reason that we delight in hearing stories. Human experience interests us vitally. Odysseus tells his hosts in the Odyssey that there is no human occasion better than when people have eaten and drunk their fill and then listen to tales about the terrible in human lives. Somehow we do know that other people's stories matter to us, that we are all in life together and what others have experienced and learned illuminates our own lives. We must not be so very unlike. Besides reason and the w illingness to lose ourselves to books and in one another's company, a third ingredient is necessary to a community of learning, and that is humor. Humor allows us to admit our faults and e rrors, to say "that idea of mine wasn 't right, here's a nothe r. " This k ind of humor recreates the comm unity. It incites o th ers to remember that they can err, too . This invitation to remember our commonness asks us not to fa ll to some level of mediocrity but to rise to our possibilities, and leaves u s open to change, a necessary state for growth and for healing from our ignorance. From a lecture to graduate students at the college, June 16, 1991. pa ge f i v e �W. E. B. DU BOIS I sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balz ac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out the caves of evening that swing between the stronglimbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor cond es c ens ton, So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the Veil. Is this the life you grudge us? Are you so afraid lest peering from this high Pisgah, between Philistine and Amalekite, we sight the Promised Land? In thinking about the proposition that the greatest of minds can draw us together, speak to us, across any line of race. place and time, consider the following- W. E. 8. Du Bois The Souls of Black Folk, (Greenwich: Fawcett Publications Inc., 1903) p a ge si x LETTE RS fro m Sa nt a F e Sum m e r 1 992 �MAYA ANGELOU Determined to do what others did, at age twelve Maya Angelou decided to "render a rendition" of poetry before the congregation of the C.M.E. Church of Stamps, Arkansas. I decided that I would render Portia's speech from The Merchant of Venice. I had it choreographed; it was going to be fantastic, but then, Momma (as I called my grandmother) asked me, "Sister, what are you planning to render? " So I told her, " A piece fr o m Shakespeare, Momma ." Momma asked, "Now sister, who is this very Shakespeare?" I had to tell her that Shakespeare was white, and Momma felt the less we said about whites the better, and if we didn't mention them at all, maybe they'd just get up and leave. I couldn't lie to her, so I told her, "Momma, it's a piece written by William Shakespeare who is white but he's dead and has been dead for centuries!" Now, I thought that she would forgive him that little idiosyncracy. Momma said, "Sister, you will render a piece of Mister Langston Hughes, Mister Countee Cullen, Mister James Weldon Johnson, or Mister Paul Laurence Dunbar. Yes ma'am, little mistress, you will!" Well I did, but years later, when I physically and psychologically left that country, that condition, which is Stamps, Arkansas .. .I found myself and still find myself, whenever I like, stepping back into Shakespeare. Whenever I like, I pull him to me. He wrote it for me. "When in disgrace with fortun e and men 's eyes,/ I all alone beweep my outcast state/ And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries/ And look upon myself and curse my fate.I Wishing me like to one more rich in hope/ Featured like him, like him with friends possess'd/ Desiring this man's art and that man 's scope/ With what I most enjoy contented least... " Of course he wrote it.for me; that is a condition of the black woman. Of course, he was a black woman. I understand that. Nobody else understands it, but I know that William Shake!>peare was a black woman. Tbat is the role of art in life. Maya Angelou, Journey to the Heartland Address delivered at the 1985 National Assembly of Local Arts Agencies, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 12, 1985. S umm e r 19 9 2 l. F. T T F. R S f r o m Santa Fe pa ge sev en �Following is the list of books on which the St. John's program is based. The list is subject to constant review and revision . Some books are read only in part. SECOND YEAR FIRST YEAR Homer Aeschylus Sophocles Thucydides Euripides Herodotus Aristophanes Plato Aristotle Euclid Lucretius Plutarch Nicomachus Lavoisier Essays by: Iliad, Odyssey Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides, Prometheus Bound Oedipus Rex, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone Peloponnesian War Hippolytus, Medea, Bacchae The Persian Wars Cloud;~ Birds Meno, Gorgias, Republic, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Symposium, Parmenides, 1heaetetus, Sophist, Timaeus, Phaedrus Poetics, Physics, Metaphysics, Nichomachean Ethics, On Generation and Corruption, The Politics, Parts ofAnimals, Generation ofAnimals Elements On the Nature of Things "Pericles," "Alcibiades," "Lycurgus," "Solon " Arithmetic Elements of Chemistry Archimedes, Toricelli, Pascal, Fahrenheit, Black, Avogadro, Dalton Cannizzaro, Richter, T. Thompson Aristotle Apollonius Virgil Plutarch Epictetus Tacitus Ptolemy Plotinus Augustine Anselm Aquinas Dante Chaucer De Prez Machiavelli Copernicus Luther Rabelais Palestrina Montaigne Viete Bacon Shakespeare Poems by: Harvey Descartes Pascal Bach Haydn Mozart Beethoven Schubert Stravinsky Webern Essays by: The Bible De Anima, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Categories Conics Aeneid "Caesar", "Antony", "Brutus", "Cato The Younger'; "Pompey ", "Cicero" Discourses, Manual Annals Almagest 1heEnneads Confessions, City of God Proslogium Summa 1heologica, Summa Contra Gentiles Divine Comedy Canterbury Tales Mass The Prince, Discourses On the Revolution of the Spheres The Freedom of a Christian, Secular Authority, Gargantua and Patagruel Missa Papae Marcelli Essays "Introduction to the Analytical Art" Novum Organum Richard II, Henry IV, Henry v; The Tempest, As You Like It, Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, Coriolanus, Sonnets Marvell, Donne, and other 16th and 17th-century poets Motion of the Heart and Blood Geometry Generation of Conic Sections St. Matthew Passion, Inventions Quartets Operas Sonatas Songs Symphony of Psalms Selected works Bernard, Weismann, D'Arcy, Lamark, Dreisch, Boveri, Von Baer �THIRD YEAR Don Quixote Two New Sciences Leviathan Discourse on Method, Meditations, Rules for the Direction ofMind Milton Paradise Lost La Rochefoucauld Maximes La Fontaine Fables Pensees Pascal Huygens Treatise on Light, On the Movement of Bodies by Impact Spinoza Tbeologico-Political Treatise Locke Second Treatise of Government Racine Phedre Principia Mathematica Newton Epitome IV Kepler Monadology, Discourse on Leibnitz Metaphysics, Essay on Dynamics Swift Gulliver's Travels Berkeley Principles of Human Knowledge Hume Treatise of Human Nature Social Contract, The Origin of Rousseau Inequality Adam Smith Wealth of Nations Critique of Pure Reason, Kant Fundamental Principles of Metaphysics of Morals, Mozart Don Giovanni Austen Pride and Prejudice, Emma Hamilton, Jay and Madison The Federalist Melville Billy Budd, Benito Cereno Dedekind Essay on the Tbeory of Numbers Fielding Tomjones Essays by: Young, Maxwell , S. Carnot, L. Carnot, Mayer, Kelvin, Taylor, Euler, D. Bernoulli Cervantes Galileo Hobbes Descartes FOURTH YEAR Moliere Goethe Mendel Darwin Hegel Lobachevsky Tocqueville Lincoln Kierkegaard Wagner Thoreau Marx Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States ofAmerica Tbe Misanthrope, Tartuffe Faust Experiments in Plant Hybridization Origin of Species Phenomenology ofMind, Logic (from the Encyclopedia), Tbeory of Parallels Democracy in America Selected speeches Philosophical Fragments, Fear and Trembling Tristan and Isolde Walden Communist Manifesto, Capital, Political and Economic Manuscripts of 1844 Dostoevski Tolstoy Twain Woolf O'Connor William James Nietzsche Freud Jung Valery Kafka Heidegger Heisenberg Einstein Millikan Conrad Joyce Poems by: Essays by: Brothers Karamazov, Tbe Possessed War and Peace Tbe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn To Tbe Lighthouse Everything Tbat Rises Must Converge Psychology: Briefer Course Birth of Tragedy, Tbus Spake Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Civilization and Its Discontents Two Essays in Analytic Psychology Poems Tbe Metamorphosis, Tbe Penal Colony What is Philosophy Tbe Physical Principles of the Quantum Tbeory Selected papers Tbe Electron Supreme Court Opinions Heart of Darkness TbeDead Yeats, T. S. Eliot, Wallace Stevens, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, and others Faraday, Lorenz, ].]. Thomson, Whitehead, Minkowski, Rutherford, Davisson, Bohr, Schrodinger, Maxwell, de Broglie, Dreisch, Mendel �CURRENT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE BOOK LIST by Eva Brann Dean, St. John's College Annapolis We are sometimes asked why our program contains so few works by women and blacks, and none at all from the East. It is a subject we have considered individually and as a faculty. Here are some of our thoughts: First of all, it seems that people ask this question with roughly three sorts of expectations in mind: 1. They expect, in a general way, that in putting together a list of re quired readings we would make sure to include a fair sampling of the great works produced by all the diverse groups-the civilizations , faiths, races, professions-that go to make up humanity; in view of the shrinking of today' s world they would hope that we would help our students to a more gl o bal understanding. 2. Or, again, they suspect that it is pre s umptuous of a faculty to establish criteria for a whole school, especially whe n these criteria turn out to select books written mostly by European and North American authors who are white , male and long dead; they expe ct us to balance this list with more recent works by women and minority writers. 3. Finally, they worry that students b e longing to thes e latter pa g e e ig h t EACH WORK IS PICKED BECAUSE IT IS FAIRLY ACCESSIBLE ON ITS OWN AND ALSO BECAUSE IT FORMS AN INTEGRAL WHOLE WITH THE OTHERS. THESE TEXTS BUILD ON AND SOMETIMES REFLECT BACK ON EACH OTHER ... L E TT E RS fr o m Santa F e groups might have a hard time getting what they need from books not written by, or for, or even much about them; they feel that education should provide an element of support for people with special histories. Here are some responses we as a fa c ulty do agree on-of course within wide limits of difference: 1. It is easiest for us to respond to the first version of the question, which concerns the representation in the program of greatness in all its diversity, because our answer is so much constrained by practical educational necessity. Conside r just the literary works and sacred texts of East and West : what c an we do in the four short years we have with our students? We could draw up a list of isolated high points and fill in the context with bro a d-brush e d background lectures-a form of instruction in which we have no faith. Such a spotty survey would be demeaning to the works and unsatisfying to our students. Moreover, we are convinced that the condition of an intelligent respect for other worlds is a thorough assimilation of one's own. So we have chosen to study a sequence of works from the Western tradition . Each work is pick e d because it is fairly accessible on its own and also because it forms an integral whole with the others. These texts build on and sometime.} reflect back on each othe r ; they weave, willy-nilly, that web of refutation and resurrection, of argument and counterargument, sensibility and countersensibility, passion and counterpassion that characte rizes our particular legacy: Our tradition develops as a unity of radical oppositions. More ove r, just as this list lends intellectu a l integrity to the program , it assures some social Summ e r 19 9 2 �coherence to the college community, since we have almost all studies in common. These are features we value highly enough to forego others, though not without regret. 2. In answer to the second version of the question, how we can presume to choose for the whole institution and then to make so restricted a choice , we would say, first, that although our list may not be broad (though it does span almost three millennia and two continents) it is both deep and crucial to our lives. These texts , be they books , music or pictures, contain the roots of understanding for moderns in general and for Americans in particular. What all inhabitants of the globe have in common is the need to come to grips with science, and for that the texts on our program are indispensible. But these works also speak to us as Americans, particularly since they contain the political principles by which we live together. Moreover, a far truer description than that which represents the hyphenated Americans as outsiders to the Western tradition is that which regards them as charter members of its continual refounding. Thus it is not a mere curiosity that in reestablishing the theory of civil disobedience from jail in Birmingham, Martin Luther King reached back to Socrates in jail in Athens, or that the present flowering of black literature comes from women who are equally well versed in the Bible and in Baudelaire. Of course, we cannot ove rlook the fact that groups recently emerging are not well represented in the program. We think of this fact as just that: a mere fact, a brute historical fact. To allow it to govern our choice of readings would be to cut Summ e r 1992 our nose to spite our face . How would we serve our students by curtailing their access to a deep analysis of the present condition? At any rate, time itself will cure the defect. A tradition so long in the making is slow to recognize newcomers, but when we come round we will be paying tribute to the intrinsic excellence of the works , not to some exterior pressure. THESE TEXTS .. . CONTAIN THE ROOTS OF UNDERSTANDING . . . We do, however, have both formal and informal ways of trying new books. As a regular part of the program , we have the prece ptorial , small study groups in which tutors and students can try out books not on the seminar list. Furthermore , students run extra-curricular, all-college seminars for which they often choose just such works. Moreover, some of us subscribe to the ideal of reading everything promising .in sight. The long and the short of it is that as a faculty we could never bring ourselves to include works just because they were written by L E T TE R S fr o m S anta F e women or blacks, or even because they were of burning topical interest. The reason is that we do not think of a great book as representing a group interest, but rathe r as presenting the sometimes radically independent thought of an individual. In fact, that characteristic is one of our criteria for picking a book. We do recognize that there are many people in the universities who deny that there are such books, who think that all books are almost totally conditioned by the ir authors' sex, race or social origin. But we continue to believe that a thinking human being can penetrate beyond these circumstances. At any rate, we find that works approached in this spirit open up to us and to our students. That faith fits in with the fact that this college is-in ce rtain respects-a deeply democratic place. It is democratic in attempting to combine individualism of inquiry with community of endeavor, in encouraging a kind of do-it-yourself learning without recourse to professional expertise or authority, in providing for the sort of seminar discussion in which each member participates on an equal footing and the most diverse opinions get a respectful hearing. So it is precisely to prote ct this egalitarian spirit that we look for works which take hold of us all as human beings, which engage our feelings and our reason and are yet distant enough from topical turmoil to keep the discussion civil and thoughtful. One might say that we are compelled by our democratic format to keep the program gender-and color-and issue-blind. 3. But that doesn't mean that we don't recognize the problems raised by these principles in practical application: We know that we must come to grips with the question how the pa g e nine �female half of our student population or the increasing number of Asian and black students fare here, what they find that may speak to them specifically. Here we do differ a good deal in our individual concerns. One unde rlying assumption for those who feel the problem-not all do-is that the life of individual human beings is so largely informed by their sex and their race and by past injustices done on those accounts that their education must pay attention to these facts. Others, while not denying the importance of being a woman or being non-white , worry about the dangers of fostering too resentful a sensitivity or too narrow a perspective of human affairs. It is an open question within the community which is sure to be much discussed in the immediate future. What we can say is that our books are not the worst background for deepening the conversation. Another supposition, more directly relevant to the program, is that works which are not written by or about or for certain groups, women, for example, have less to say to them. This is a tricky problem , particularly since students' receptivity depends in part on the attitudes that are encouraged. Yet there might well be some spontaneous recoil when, for instance, a young woman meets as the first hero in her reading here Home r's Achilles. She might indee d have trouble identifying with him, and she might see his fatal self-regard as a typically male flaw . But, then, such a woman in her more martial moods might have no difficulty at all empathizing with his blazing fury. Or, again, she might decide that neither alienation nor empathy is the point, but human sympathy. page ten Similarly, it seems somehow evident that no man can write of a woman's lot from the inside. And yet, men have convincingly delineated female characters , from charmingly complex girls, like Homer's Nausikaa and Tolstoy's Natasha to royally terrific women like Aeschylus' Clytemnestra and Virgil's Dido. These grand portraits may be as illuminating even to a womanor a man -as might be a tract by a woman on the condition of women. It should be mentioned that there are in fact several great women novelists on the program: Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, and Flannery O'Conner. Some of them, read blind, would probably not be distinguishable as female . Others, Jane Austen for example, add the most digestible and salutary kind of diversity, diversity of experience. It would not do her proper honor to say that she brings a woman's view to the world at large ; she claims rather to bring a human view to the small and largely female world to which she so expertly introduces us. Nonetheless, it would be ostrichlike to deny that at this particular time the program requires of som~ students something extra by way of stretching their imagination and widening their thinking. It requires of the men that they take female figures with all the high seriousness LETTEHS fr o m Santa Fe ancient and modern authors have accorded them. It requires of women that they raise to a human level texts not apparently written for them. The rewards for that sort of effort have always been an added distinction. (Although when this was written St. John's had no regular selection of Asian texts in the curriculum, the Santa Fe campus now has an Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics. It follows the same principles as the regular undergraduate curriculum, with emphasis on classic texts and special attention to languages. It exemplifies exactly what we mean by taking "otherness" and real diversity seriously. The program does not have the contemporary political goal of "exposure" to diversity but, rather, a deeper understanding of the fundamenta I and enduring questions that are raised by thoughtful human beings wherever an intellectual tradition is established. In the end, however, what we hope to learn is not simply something other-the Eastern mind-but something common-the human mind, and what we might learn in common about human greatness and the human condition.) Summer 1992 �WHY LATIN? WHY GREEK? Who we are ... and who we are not. by John Agresto President, St. John's College Santa Fe T wain tells us that Huckleberry Finn, that quintessential American, was fascinated with the Biblical story of Moses. But it soon dawned on Huck "that Moses had been dead a considerable long time." With that, Huckleberry informs us, "I didn't care no more about him; because I don't take no stock in dead people ." Since making the case for learning "dead" languages is, arguably, harder than making the case for learning about Moses, what in the world can contemporary Americans say in favor of Greek and Latin? The first answer everyone seems to give is the one that is in the papers each week: the study of ancient languages, especially Latin, is useful in building English · vocabulary, thus helping to raise our children's SAT scores. We read it, and we wince. Is this how low the mighty have fallen? Is the real competitor to Cicero no longer Catiline but Stanley Kaplan and the quickie cram course? Or sometimes we read that the best reason for learning Latin is simply that it is tough- it teaches "rigorous discipline," it "exercises the mind." For what end? Well, so valuable is the rigor of classical learning that I recently heard of a teacher who promotes Latin as good mental training for future computer buffs. A kind of warm-up exercise for the real stuff. 0 temporal Such narrow and merely utilitarian arguments are perhaps why a majority of Latin students drop the language after only one year. Surely we need to know the value of these ancient studies, but is there nothing good the classics have to offer beyond vocabulary building, pretechnical training and the academic equivalent of Marine boot camp? So let us begin a defense of the Ancients with the least popular of all contemporary academic reasons: We read the Ancients because they are ours. These languages and their hooks, their plays, their modes of thought have helped form not only our contemporary speech but our politics, o ur literature, our history and the shape of our civilization. If we are to know ourselves, we must know our own. Despite glib talk in certain circles that insists our first jo b is to open our minds to the understanding of other cultures and ways of life, if we fail to know our own civilization-its hopes, its principles, its reasons and its greatness- we will not be able to make comparisons that are even worth a dime. These dead languages and the civilization the y embrace are ours: they formed us, almost as deep ly as have Christianity and the Bible. To give a small example, not too long ago I p icked up my copy of the Federalist Papers and turned to one of James Madison's attacks o n the opponents of the Constitution. In defending the new Republic, Madison mentions, in the space of about two pages, Minos, Theseus, Numa, Tullius Hostilius, Brutus, Se rvius Tullius, Romulus, Crete , the Locrians, Rome, Athe ns, Sparta and the Achaean S umm e r 7 99 2 L E T TE R S fr o m S a n t a Fe THESE DEAD LANGUAGES AND THE CIVILIZATION THEY EMBRACE ARE OURS: THEY FORMED US, ALMOST AS DEEPLY AS HAVE CHRISTIAN/TY AND THE BIBLE. p a ge e l e v e n �League. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was just as much at home in Greek and Latin as he was in English and French. But the Federalist Papers were not essays written for a convention of classics professors. They were newspaper articles, read on the street. In forging this new nation, this Novus Ordo Seclorum (you can read these words in Virgil and on the back of a dollar bill), any number of Americans knew their Athens, their Rome , their Republicanism and their Latin, and knew them as something living, not dead. The problems of Athenian democracy were not far from our own problems. Socrates' questions about human excellence are still our questions. Nevertheless, the Ancients are not completely ours. If the thoughts of antiquity mirror our own in all or even most particulars, if we are their direct and exact descendants, then there is less , not more, reason to study them. Or if the progress of the human mind was such that the Romans and Greeks were mental children and we are smarter, more thoughtful adults, then looking back is merely an antiquarian affectation. It is only because Homer and Herodotus and Cicero and Socrates are like us, but not exactly, that they are worthy of attention. Locke, Madison, Marx and Nietzsche would not have been possible without the civilization and politics that stemmed from Plato and Aristotle. But they are not Plato and Aristotle. Indeed, their conversations with the Ancients are profound debates, arguments that take seriously the alternatives defended by those who page twelve lived before modernity. Arthur Miller is not Sophocles. Sophocles has a different insight into human tragedy from the tragedy of Willy Loman. That's why we read Sophocles. In the Ancients we see parts of ourselves more clearly, yet refracted slightly differently. And we see this other side in texts and through Ian- guages that move us from within. Properly taught , the classics inhabit the best of all possible worlds. They can appeal to the desire to know ourselves, to see the roots of our principles, ideas and culture and, at the same time, to see who we are not. People who speak as the Romans did are not the people we meet every day. The examples of Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Priam, Penelope and Antigone teach thoughts that resonate, yet are still disquieting. I once met a professor of Latin who taught Roman literature with great misgivings. The Romans kept talking about such unmodern notions as manliness , virtue, the deepest of friendships , nobility , baseness , revenge, honor. It made LETT ERS from Santa Fe him uneasy. This unease, not vocabulary building or the chance to play in togas, is the true value of Latin and Greek. Yes, we can learn "about" the Ancients and become pedantic. We can do our Latin declensions and hope to jump up a notch on the college boards. Or we can try to learn some things from the Ancients, and do it in their languages and with their ears, and become broader, less provincial and more deeply educated. Despite all our contemporary pride, they still might have the best books. There is one thing more to say, and it has to do not with searching for truth but with beauty. The ancient languages and their poems and plays and dialogues have unrivaled charm, power and grace. They have the singular ability to help us free ourselves from vulgarity. I do not mean "vulgar " in the Roman sense of "common." The Greeks had a more insightful word for vulgarity. They referred to it as apeirokalia, the lack of experience with things that are beautiful. The Parthenon, Euripides, the perfection of each Platonic dialogue, the sound of Greek sentences-all these have the power to raise us up, not simply our vocabulary scores. It hardly qualifies as the most practical argument to make, but as we work over our Latin declensions, difficult as they might be, we might soon get the sense of something precise , something proportioned, something noble, something truly beautiful. Salve. This is an essay first published in The Washington Post, July 22, 1987. Summer19 92 �EQUAL CULTURES-OR EQUALITY? by Cathy Young Freelance Writer Article taken from The Washington Post Sunday, March 29, 1992 Feminism and multiculturalism have become essential articles of current progressive faith. A recent report from the American Association of University Women on eliminating gender bias in high school, for example, also enthusiastically endorsed a multicultural curriculum. But, like most academics, the report's authors fail to recognize that these two tenets are often incompatible. The central premise of the multiculturalist credo, after all, is that all cultures are created equal. To judge other cultures by Western standards is unforgivably ethnocentric. Yet, as Islamic fundamentalists remind us, equality of the sexes is a Western value judgment. It is, moreover, a standard by which most non-Western cultures--even allowing for a few quasimatriarchal tribes-come up short. Last year, the New York Times reviewed anthropologist Kenneth Good's memoir of life with the Yanomamo tribe in Venezuela. Having summarized his account of the tribe's misogynist brutality-unmarried girls past puberty, widows and runaway wives are routinely gang-raped and sometimes maimed-the critic went on to quote, approvingly, Good's assertion that "violence [was] not a central theme of Yanomamo life. " This angered a woman reader, who wrote to the Times denouncing "the myopia ... where violence against women is concerned." Yet surely there was something else at work. One can hardly imagine a Times reviewer extending such tolerance to violence against women by American men. With a Stone Age Amazonian tribe, however, it is safer to be myopic than "ethnocentric," even at the price of mental contortion. In a world civilization course I once took at a community college in New Jersey, our female professor explained that while the status of women in India might seem low, they often wielded much power in the household and were revered as mothers of sons. I expressed surprise she would make excuses for an oppressive patriarchy. "As well," the professor snapped back, "there's no reason for us to be smug. We still have a lot of discrimination against women in this society too. " As if female infanticide and the immolation of widows equaled the unfair denial of a promotion. Similarly, advocates of Afrocentrism rarely say much about cliterodectomy, polygamy or the acceptance of wife-beating in much of Africa. It seems that Summer 1992 LETT ERS from Santa Fe page thirteen �the position of women has to be cast in the best possible light when it comes to non-Western culturesand in the worst possible light when it comes to the West (which, even before feminism, accorded women a higher status than any other major culture). The double standard is blatant. The only civilization that made an effort to overcome its sexist traditions, the West is berated for failing to do away with them completely. But Third World cultures are treated as static; to try to protect the Yanomamo's ancestral customs from the onslaught of Western ways is noble. The issue is not just an academic one. America is home to millio ns of immigrants from a diverse array of cultures. Current "politically correct'' thinking holds that these immigrants and their children should be encouraged to preserve their cultural identities and values; assimilation is viewed as a form of psychic vio1ence. But what if these va lu es include polygamy or arranged marriages of nine-year-old girls? Shall we condone the slaying of unfaithful wives by husbands avenging their honor if that was the custom in their native countries? If you think I am pushing the multiculturalist logic to an absurd extreme, think again. The answer to the last questio n is : We already do. In 1987, a Chinese immigrant name d Do ng Lu Chen killed his wife, smashing h er h ead with a claw hamme r after she confessed to an affair. At the 1989 tria l, w hich include d testimony of an anthropologis t, the d e fe nse a rg u e d that Che n's background-"the specia l high p lace the family ho lds in the Chine se community " and "the shame and humiliation" of a w ife's p a ge fo u r t een infidelity-made him lose control. Mostly on the strength of this "cultural defense," a Brooklyn judge sentenced Chen to five years probation on a manslaughter charge. The sentence initially sparked protests among women's groups and Asian activist groups alike. But the coalition fell apart because Asian groups were fearful of undermining the notion of a cultural defe nse. To bar it "would promote the idea that when people come to America, they have to give up their way of doing things, " huffed Margaret Fung, executive director of the Asian-American Legal Defense and Educatio n Fund. TO JUDGE OTHER CULTURES BY WESTERN STANDARDS IS UNFORGIVABLY ETHNOCENTRIC. YET, AS ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS REMIND US, EQUALITY OF THE SEXES IS A WESTERN VALUE JUDGMENT L ETTE R S f •· om San ta Fe Yet is it not possible that many people come here because they arc attracted to the American way of doing things? This may be particularly true of women, who often relish liberation from the patriarchal customs back home. What a cruel mockery if, out of defere nce to multicultural sensitivities, our institutions began to mimic these customs. That was just how the Chen sentence was perceived by women who had the most reason to take it personally: Asian American battered wives. After that case, according to Newsday, many told counselors that the thre at of taking the ir men to court had ceased to be a deterre nt. Said an immigration lawyer, "Their view is that maybe the courts he re protect the male the same way the system protects the male in China." The "cultural defe n se" has s ince cropped up in several spousal homicide and rape cases involving immigrants from othe r Third World countries. One pow erful symbol of Desert Storm was the contrast between the veile d a nd silent women of Saudi Ara bia and U. S. fe ma le soldie rs working alongside the men. It was a source of pride to most Americans, and a reminde r that at least w hen it comes to gender, some cultures are clearly more equal than others. Once this simple fact is recognize d , it might bring us to p o nde r the possibility that women may owe something to such unique ly Western ideals as reverence for the individu al, free dom of c hoice, and even technologi cal maste ry o f naturcw hic h h e lp e d ease the b io logical constraints whose weig ht o n women has always been esp ecia lly h eavy. And o nce we start thinking of that, who knows what heresies could be next' Stt m m e r 1 992 �ACCESS AND EXCELLENCE by Carolynn Reid-Wallace Assistant Secretary for Post-Secondary Education , United States Deptartment of Education / n 1986 the National Assessment of Educational Progress indicated that two-thirds of the natio n's seventeen-year-olds did n ot know wh e n the Civi l War occurred or wha t t he Reformation was or the n a mes of such literary giants as Chaucer, Melville, and Austen. Many of these students went on to colleges that had equally low standards, as revealed in a 1988 National Endowme nt for the Humanities survey of higher education , w hich found that it was possible to earn a bachelor's degree from: • 80 percent of U.S. colleges and universities without taking American history • 80 percent w ithout taking a course in Western civilization • 62 percent without a course in philosophy • 77 percent w ithout studying a foreign language. How can we call o ur citizens "educated" if they have never been exposed to the study of their o wn country's history? What is the purpose of higher education if not to produce an educated person? And how can someone w ho has gone through four or more years of tertiary education without studying history, philosophy, or a foreign language be considered "educated "? No t only can the standards of higher education in America be raised, they must be raised. Moreover, they can and should be raised without reference to the issue of access. There is no access/excellence dichotomy. These concepts are not antithetical because they are not related. They represent two goals, noble in themselves, worthy of our highest and best efforts to achieve them. Su mm e r 7 992 L ETTERS from Santa F e p age f i ft ee n �NOT ALL WHO HAVE ACCESS WILL ACHIEVE EXCELLENCE; HOWEVER, INCREASING SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION THROUGH LOWERED STANDARDSOR NO STANDARDS AT ALL-DEMEANS AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION BY DEVALUING WHAT IT PURPORTS TO OFFER.. .. pag e s i x t een We should direct our attention to solving the challenge of achieving excellence, not as they might seem to relate to one another-for that is the path of finger-pointing and blame-laying but as they exist apart from each other. Not all who have access w ill achieve exce ll e n ce; h owever, increasing successful participation through lowered standards-or no standards at all-demeans an institution of higher education by devaluing what it purports to offer: a firstrate, not third-rate, educatio n. No one benefits-neither the student nor the institution, let a lo ne the prospective employer or societywhen colleges and universities create a false vision of excellence, one "levele d down" by misguided attempts to accommodate the illprepared. There is no easy path to institutional excellence. As H esiod warned, "Badness you can get easily, in quantity: the road is smooth, and it lies close by. But in front of excellence the immortal gods have put sweat, and long and steep is the way to it, and rough at first." We all know from our experiences that the path to our own education was long and steep. We had to sweat a little or a lot, de pending o n w hether the standards set by the institution we attended were easy or tough. The institution that actually helps its students excel is one that expects sweat and toil from them. It expects its students to read from the classics, to be familiar w ith the natural sciences and the fundame ntals · of mathematics, to be skilled in the principles of logic a nd reasoning. Whether the students consider it relevant or no t, they are exposed to the thought of the ages, to e thics, history, a nd literature. They a re L E TTERS from Santa F e expected to know thoroughly the Western h e ritage on which this democracy is based and a lso to understand the aesthetic vision of cultures outside the Western tradition. Institutions that have a vision of excellence also make a con certed effort to get students in the door. But once there, th e students are n o t allowed to set their sights too low or their goals too narrow. They a re exposed to a rigorous curriculum in an environment conducive to learning, and they are expected to meet the standards set by the institution , be they standards of content or performance or both. Not all who have access will achieve excellence. Tocqueville recognized this when he said, "The gifts of intellect proceed directly from God, and man cannot prevent their une qual distribution ." But we can prevent th e construction of fa lse dichotomies. Access and excellence a re not antithetical. Our vision of excellence must include both . We must set high standards for those who are willing and able to take the long, rough road to the top, and we must help those less capable by ensuring that no door is closed, no path barred, and- especially-no excuse made in their behalf th a t dilutes standards of excellence in the name of increasing access. Su m m e r 7 992 �ANNOUNCEMENTS DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS COLLEGE FUND St. John's College in Santa Fe has an opening, beginning this fall , for someone to help arrange scholarly conferences and symposia, organize on-campus programs involving outside groups and institutions, and manage meeting facilities . A letter of interest with resume should be sent to the attention of John Agresto, President. If there's a theme to this newsletter we publish, it is the value and present condition of traditional liberal arts education. St. John's College is, in our opinion, an outstanding example of this education. Although these Letters. are not part of the fundraising efforts of St. John's, a number of our readers support the college financially. If there are others of you who would care to do so-and these Letters now go to about 2500 friends-we would certainly welcome your support . Helping St. John's College is a valuable way to further the cause of liberal education itself. Thank you all. We are ve1y grateful to the Laurel Foundation for their generous support of this and the next two issues. LE TT ER Sfrom Santa Fe. Summe 1· 1 99 2 L E TT E R S fro m Santa F e pag e s eve nt ee n �PROFILE St. John's College: An independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college. Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Weste rn civilization. The program requires four years of foreign language , four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty: 8:1 ratio. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. Master of Arts in Libe ral Studies. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55% men and 45% women from 30 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. It is offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact the Graduate Institute in Santa Fe (505) 982-3691 ext. 249 or in Annapolis (301) 263 - 2371. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Bulk Rate U.S. Postage · PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 20 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Summer 1992 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Summer 1992 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1992 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Buchenauer, Nancy D. Brann, Eva T. H. Young, Cathy (Cathy A.) Reid-Wallace, Carolynn Bloom, Allan, 1930-1992 Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1992_Summer Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/338c7645050d44bcbbc66a1da39c49ac.pdf b7508b36e81168cea9efd5e108ba075d PDF Text Text LETTERSfrom St. John's College-Santa Fe, New Mexico Falt 1992 TEACHING ETHICS I NS IDE DIRECTIVE MORAL EDUCATION page2 TEACHING INTEGRITY: THE BOUNDARIES OF MORAL EDUCATION page3 STORYTELLING AND VIRTUE page 7 TEACHING THE VIRTUES page 12 LEARNING GOODNESS page 18 The teaching of ethics has lately fallen on hard times. What schools once took for granted-that students would learn to be better people as well as develop sharper minds-is no longer very evident. Maybe it happened when we started calling virtues "values," shifting from the value of morality to the view that ethical judgments are simply one's own "value judgments." Maybe it happened when we reduced the great American principle of individual liberty to the notion that all ways of life are equally valid, that liberty is only intolerant of judgmentalism. Maybe it happened when people confused teaching with indoctrination, somehow thinking that the questioning of conventional ethics was the mark of a teacher and the teaching of ethics the mark of a thug. Maybe it happened when the idea of cultural relativity took hold, with the corollary that ethics is both culturally determined and all moral views, therefore, of equal worth and stature. (Sometimes this has another corollary-that all cultures are equal, except ours, which is bad.) Maybe it happened when the teaching of old-fashioned ethics was seen as exactly that, old-fashioned, superseded by a new morality, one more enlightened and progressive. In response to the scorn-laden question "And whose morality will you teach?" the answer always is, beneath it all, theirs, those more advanced, those less "old-fashioned." In this issue I have reprinted a number of essays all attempting to understand and improve the current situation. Two themes seem to me to be constant: First, the simple necessity of public moral education, and second, the efficacy of indirect instruction, primarily through the use of stories and literature. This last theme has the advantage of not only raising the level of goodness, but of encouraging good reading. Yes, I will be the first to admit that not all literature is edifying. But it surely would be an advance to hear students and teachers talk about the nature of Iago's treachery or the meaning of Jim's friendship with Huck and not just the shape of the Globe theater or the symbolism of the river. This last point is a topic we will come back to in a subsequent newsletter on literature, but my guess is that using stories to help teach character might well be a real advance both for moral education and for literature, too. Sincerely, John Agresto �The followin g, an excerpt of an essay that first appeared in The Public Interest in 1981, is the beginning of a seminal piece by Andrew Oldenquist of Ohio State University. Much of what has been written since on the teaching of ethics draws on these notions of cultural preservation and the inadequacy of quandary or dilemma ethics . If we were anthropologists observing members of a tribe it would be the most natural thing in the world to expect them to teach their morality and culture to their children, and moreover, to think that they had a perfect right to do so on the ground that cultural integrity and perpetuation depended on it. Indeed, if we found that they had ceased to teach the moral and other values of their culture, we would take them to be on the way to cultural suicide: We would think them ruined, pitiable, alienated from their own values and on the way out. Most of us have similar attitudes toward the educational policies of nation states other than our own. We expect Japanese and Nigerian children to be educated to be, among other things, good Japanese and Nigerians . We find this to be a natural and reasonable expression of societal self-interest. Some of the very people who would be the first to accept all of this regarding other cultures are the first to deny it regarding their own. They are inconsistent, of course, unless they desire the death of their own culture for reasons that do not also apply to other cultures. Private institutions, such as families and churches, have a right to engage in moral education, but public institutions, such as public schools, have an obligation to do so, because they are the instruments non-suicidal societies create to perpetuate what is essential to the continued existence, and therefore the continued benefits, of the society. We need to distinguish the basic moral core that sustains a moral community from the controversial issues and exceptional cases which bewilder adults. In our own society the moral core consists of principles of social morality such as honesty, fairness, willingness to work, disavowal of criminal violence, respect for the democratic political process, together with personal virtues such as courage, diligence and self-respect. It is essential that young people actually acquire these attitudes and not simply talk about them. Several points need to be made in elaboration of the distinction between a basic core and moral controversies. First, teenagers and adults can benefit from reasoning about dilemmas and hard cases only if they have already accepted and internalized a basic core of principles. For example, one has to accept and take very seriously a principle about honesty before one can agonize over exceptions to it. If students are taught dilemmas before or in place of principles, they will think that morality is nothing but dilemmas; and if they discuss exceptions to principles without first having internalized the principles themselves, the exceptions, meeting no resistance, will come all too easily. Second, the inculcation of civilized moral habits not only logically precedes the study of dilemmas, it page t wo L E TT ER S from S an t a F e DIRECTIVE MORAL EDUCATION by Andrew Oldenquist is essential to any society even minimally safe and satisfying. A society is a moral community, which means that it has a shared morality that predictably regulates interpersonal conduct. Habitual, principled behavior is simply more important than reasoning about controversies, though both are important. But people do not become principled by magic or by heredity, nor is it possible to transmit moral principles to children by the use of non-directive methods. They must be made so by the society' s institutionalized civilizing agencies-families, churches, public opinion and schools. Third, acquiring a principle of social morality is not just a matter of coming to know something or to reason in a certain way. A wellbrought-up person feels badly at the thought of breaking a promise or stealing and has to have an awfully good reason, or very strong temptation, before he will go ahead and do it. Aristotle made the point by saying that a morally educated person finds virtue to be (relatively) pleasant and vice (relatively) disagreeable. In general, American moral educators stay as far away as possible from the emotional components of moral principles and the emotional aspects of moral education. This enables them to feign a dispassionate moral neutrality. Consequently, moral educators intellectualize morality and the process of moral education, which also is paradoxical since many of these same moral educators are ethical relativists and do not believe in the efficacy of intellect in matters of morality. F all 1 992 �TEACHING INTEGRITY: THE BOUNDARIES OF MORAL EDUCATION by Edwin J. Delattre A recent Wall Street Journal article on education bore the headline, "Schoolteachers Say It' s Wrong h ea ded to Try to Teach Students What's Right." This view is not new. Fou r years ago, Newsweek magazine described "morals education" as a "minefield" and asked "whose values" are to be taught. Teach ers and administrators w h o object to moral edu cation express fear of stirring unwanted controversy within diverse student populations and families. Some refuse, as a matter of principle, to teach values--on the grounds that moral education d estroys separation of church and state. Others insist that "it would be dangerou s, sad, and boring to have one view of morality imposed on our people." No one familiar with programs that h ave bee n foisted upon sch ools, teachers a nd stude nts und er the b a nner of "values" o r "moral" education can be entirely unsympathetic to these fears and concerns. Some programs, su ch as "valu es clarification," are based on a mindless reduction of morality to a matter of personal and arbitrary t aste . Students are taught tha t whether you like genocide or bigotry is roughly the same as whether you like broccoli. Schools are clearF a ll 1 99 2 ... ly better off avoiding such dangerous folly, especially because these programs teach students nothing about the real nature of principled' judgment and conduct. Other programs are imposition~ al, in the sense that they make pronouncements about morality that are ill-informed, dogmatic and highly questionable. I have seen students told that there are clear litmus tests for ide ntifying decent people- including where they stand on the rightness of abortion, of homosexuality or of specific U. S. foreign policies. Such pronouncements thwart students' learning the undeniable fact that d ecent and conscientious people can disagree about complex questions of conduct and policy . They are the refore a n affront to intellectua l honesty and do not belong in schools. Programs with this tone mislead in another way: Students deserve to learn that no matter what views individuals hold o n complex questions, they may still be d eplorable people in their habits of d aily life a nd therefore unworthy of resp ect and admiratio n . After all, a person w h o betrays the trust of others through insider trading is contemptible no matter where he or she stands on abortion. What this array of harmful and L ET T E R S f r o m S a nta Fe pa g e thr ee �SOME PROGRAMS, SUCH AS "VALUES CLARIFICATION," ARE BASED ON A MINDLESS REDUCTION OF MORALITY TO A MATTER OF PERSONAL AND ARBITRARY TASTE. pa ge f o u r benighted programs shows is that "moral education" can be and frequently has been done badly. But since virtually everyone knew that already, this was never one of the fundamental questions about moral education. The fundamental questions for centuries have been these: • What is morality? • Can morality be taught? • Can morality be learned? • Can adults possibly avoid influencing the moral habits and attitudes of the children and youths who keep company with them? Despite popular prejudices and confusions, these are not unanswerable questions. Broadly put, morality is the achievement of good character and of the aspiration to be the best person you can be. But what is good character and w h at kind of person s hould one as pire to become? The answers are that a good person is one who has integrity and that a ll of u s should aspire to achieve integrity as fully as we can. Literally, integrity means wholeness-bein g on e person in public and private, living in faithfulness to one set of principles whether or not anyone is watching. Integrity is to a person as homogenization is to milk- a single consistency throughout. But this a n swer remains too general, beca use a p e rso n can, unfortunately, have bad character in both public and private; a person can be rotten in dealing with str a n ge rs and fa mily a like. So, what kind of w holeness is genuine integrity and thus worth y of respect and emulation? First, it is the habit of treating other people fairly-givi ng them equ al initial consideration- jus t because they are people, and without regard to race or ethnicity or gender. The habit of recognizing other people as important in themselves-and not as objects to be used merely for our own gratification-is called justice. It means being able to see things from inside the skin of other people, and no one can do that who hates others because of their skin. It also means making decisions from the principle that everyone deserves to be treated fairly by our daily conduct. Where the habit of justice becomes second nature, it inspires the habit of compassion-the habit of real sensitivity to the pain or suffering of others. Second, it is the habit of controlling ourselves amid promises of pleasure, and of confining ourselves to healthful pleasures that are not selfishly sought at the expense of others. This habit is called temperance. Third, it is the habit of controlling ourselves amid threats of pain or loss- facing up to clear duties even when doing so risks ad verse peer pressure or loss of some other kind. This is the habit of courage, and it must be distinguished from cowardice and also from the recklessness to which the young are frequently inclined. Fourth, it is the habit of gathering evidence con scientiou sly a nd rely ing on it in reaching conclusions and decisions, and the habit of not u sing d eception to manipulate other people for ulterior purposes. These are the habits of intellectual and moral honesty. N ow, suppose that a person achieves such habits, achieves a substantial degree of integrit y . Where w ill tha t person stand on abortion? Is it right? Is it wrong? L ETTE R S from S a nt a F e Fa II 19 9 2 �Should it be illegal? Where will the person stand on affirmative action-on the ascription of rights to individuals and of rights to groups? We cannot know where the person will stand. We can know only that the person will take such questions seriously and seek to answer them conscientiously and with rigorous, logical reasoning and deliberation. We can know that the person will extend humility toward others who are likewise decent enough to be serious. We can know that a person of integrity will understand that morality is above all a matter of taking life and its conduct seriously and will feel kinship toward others who show such seriousness in their lives. This, students should have a chance to witness and to grasp. Can morality be taught? Can it be learned? Since achieving integrity or character excellence is a matter of forming habits, and since both good and bad habits can be formed only by repeating actions over and over again, morality cannot be taught. But because people can become habituated by repeated behavior under responsible and loving training and supervision, the habits of morality can be learned. Moreover, it is only when such habits have been learned, when the habit of giving consideration to other people has become second nature, that anyone can recognize moral problems worthy of attention and reflection. For a person who has achieved no habits of justice or temperance or courage, questions of whether to take unfair advantage of others, where to stand on abortion, whether to use illegal drugs, whether to go along with the prevailing fashion of peer pressure and so on, are not questions at all. At Fall 1992 most, conversation about them will be only a word game-perhaps a contest to see who can be most clever-insubstantial and without meaning or consequence. It is for this reason that putative moral education consisting of classroom discussion of controversial issues and putative dilemmas begs all questions of moral decency and moral motivation. Real moral deliberation presupposes learning habits of integrity; what can be taught is the principles of intellectual rigor and reliable thought as they are applied to questions of all kinds-in philosophy, the sciences, history, literature, theology and all the other disciplines of inquiry and discovery. This, surely, no administrator, teacher, or school worthy of the name would ever seek to evade. Neither would any responsible educator shirk teaching that respect for pluralism and disagreement does not embrace mindless tolerance of behavior and attitudes that are transparently unjust (such as racist supremacism of any kind) or selfishly intemperate (such as violent criminality against others) or manipulatively dishonest (such as cover-ups of corruption) and so on. Finally, is it possible for adults to be value neutral, to avoid all influence in the formation of the moral and intellectual habits and attitudes of the young? The answer is obviously no. As the great classicist and teacher, Gilbert Highet, put the point, "It is impossible to have children without teaching them . Beat them, coddle them, ignore them, force-feed them, shun them or worry about them, love them or hate them, you are still teaching them something, all the time." Most teachers know that they teach about right and wrong by the LETTERS from S anta F e TEACHERS WHO BEHAVE AS IF THEY WERE VALUE NEUTRAL IN THE PRESENCE OF THE YOUNG SUCCEED ONLY IN TEACHING THEIR STUDENTS THAT THEY ARE BEING DECEPTIVE, PROBABLY MANIPULATIVE. pa ge fi ve �way they behave. Teachers who behave as if they were value neutral in the presence of the young succeed only in teaching their students that they are being deceptive, probably manipulative. Some students will infer, perhaps unjustly, that their teachers are both liars and cowards. And the most astute students will soon see that attempting to convey value neutrality as an appropriate way to believe and behave condemns life to triviality and education to insignificance, thereby becoming as thoroughly impositional as any other uncritical dogmatism. It is, after all, possible to train and habituate the young with respect, generosity of spirit and intellectual honesty. It is possible to help the young learn habits of integrity without "imposition" and it is possible to teach them and help them learn to think with real acumen and rigor. If their teachers, who are supposed· to care about them, and their parents, who are supposed to love them, do not take life that seriously, then the young will learn their habits from the streets, from demagogues, and from entertainment and commercial media that neither care about them nor love them. That is a consequence no adult of integrity can be willing to tolerate. From Education Week, September 5, 1990. Edwin J. Delattre was president of St. John's College, Annapolis and Santa Fe, from 1980-85. He is now adjunct scholar at the A merican Enterprise Institute and the Olin Scholar in Applied Ethics at Boston University's School of Education. p age s i x LETTE R S f r om S an ta Fe F a l/ 199 2 �STORYTELLING AND VIRTUE by William Kirk Kilpatrick In After Virtue Alasdair Macintyre observes that in all classical and heroic societies, "the chief means of moral education is the telling of stories." In a real sense the heroes of The Iliad and The Odyssey were the moral tutors of the Greeks. Likewise, Aeneas was the model of heroic piety on which young Romans were nurtured. Icelandic and Irish children were suckled on sagas . And the Christian world, which reaped the inheritance of both classical and heroic societies, carried on this tradition of moral education with Bible stories, stories from the lives of saints and stories of chivalry. To be educated properly was to know of Achilles and Odysseus, Hector and Aeneas, and later to know of Beowulf and Arthur and Percival and the Christian story of salvation. The telling of stories does not seem to hold a place of much importance in contemporary attempts at moral education. The closest approximation to a story is the presentation of a moral dilemma: a man contemplates stealing a drug for his dying wife; passengers on a foundering lifeboat decide whether to toss their fellows overboard and who should be sacrificed; survivors in a fallout shelter debate whether to admit outsiders to their sanctuary. It will be apparent at once that there are important differences between these modern "fables" and Fall 19 92 the old ones. And the differences give us, in turn, a clue to the differences in thinking that animate the modern as opposed to the classical and Christian approaches to moral education. The first difference is that no attempt is made to delineate character in the moral dilemma, whereas character is everything in the heroic story. In the saga or epic everything revolves around the character of the hero - whether he exercises or fails to exercise the virtues. But the characters in the dilemmas have no characters, only decisions to make. Both Heinz (the man in the purloined drug dilemma) and Ulysses must aid their wives, but there the comparison ends. Heinz is no Ulysses. He is a blank, a cipher. He is there because he is needed to present a dilemma. We have no interest in him, only in his case. One cannot imagine parents passing down to their children the saga of Heinz and the stolen drug. The second difference is this: The actors in the dilemmas are not tied to any social particularities - traditions, loyalties, locations, or histories. True, Heinz is attached to his wife, but there is no indication why he should be. We know why Ulysses is loyal to Penelope, since her virtues are carefully enumerated. As in all the old stories, the hero's deeds are rooted in loyalty not only to homeland and tribe but also to hearth - essential details that are absent from the dilemmas. It might be objected here that the modern dilemmas are intended not to tell stories but to embody principles or, more properly, the LETTERS f r o m S anta Fe page seve n �A PERVASIVE MENTALITY OF NONDIRECTIVENESS AND SUBJECTIVENESS DICTATES THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE OUR VALUES ON OUR CHILDREN. AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE ARE FORCED TO CREATE THE FICTION THAT EACH CHILD IS IN HIS OWN RIGHT A MINIATURE SOCRATES. pa ge e i g h t - clash of principles: property rights, for example, versus the value of a human life, with the nod presumably going to the more universal value. But this is precisely the point I wish to make, for what is implied in this approach is that particular loves and loyalties - the kind that make for a good story - are largely irrelevant to moral issues. One can somehow dispense with the prelude of moral particularities and leap right into the arena of universal principles. The assumption is that the kernel of good moral judgment lies in abstract devotion to abstract principles. Moreover, there is the suggestion that devotion to father and mother or attachment between wife and husband may have nothing to do with the pursuit of justice. As in so much contemporary psychology, the central concern is with the autonomous individual. The third difference between the old stories and the new dilemmas is that the new stories, properly speaking, d o not have endings. They are open-ended, unfinished. They await your judgment. What should the shelter survivors do next? You decide. Was Heinz right to steal the drug? You decide. There is, in short, no sense that the story is ever complete or definitive. It's up for grabs and will be again n ext year with the next class. You can do what you want with these stories; you cannot with The Odyssey. There is no sense of a life fully lived or a mission completed. All of w hich amounts to saying that they are not stories after all. The old storytelling approach to moral education has been replaced with something new. The new approach is one from which the concepts of character and virtue are entirely missing. From its point of view, the life of a man is envisioned not as a personal story in which accumulated habits and actions may eventually harden into virtue or vice, but as a disconnected series of ethical and other dilemmas - all amenable to rational solution. If we return to the heroic, classical, and Christian stories, we can see how stark this contrast is and how radically novel the new approach is. And although the current techniques of moral education are largely the offspring of psychologists, we may note that the ancients had a more profound grasp of the psychology underlying moral education. The telling of stories - as opposed to the presentation of open-ended dilemmas - implies first of all that adults have something to pass on to children, a valuable inheritance that children might not come by on their own. This is easy enough to accept about other cultures... but when it comes to our own, a certain inhibition against cultural transmission sets in. A pervasive mentality of nondirectiveness and subjectiveness dictates that we don't have the right to impose our values on our children. And consequently, we are forced to create the fiction that each child is in his own right a miniature Socrates. The traditional view is tha t adults do possess a moral treasure, and that to deprive children of it would in itself show a lack of virtue. We do not, to draw a rough analogy, wait until o ur children h ave reached the age of reason before suggesting that they brush their teeth. But sooner or later children will be able to figure out for themselves that brushing is a prudent practice. This is not necessarily L E TTER S f rom Sa n ta F e Fa ll 1992 �true of moral practices. The moral treasure can be acquired only in a certain way . And if it is not obtained in that way, it is not possessed at all. This is why Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics. And why Plato maintained that the well-bred youth is nurtured from his earliest days to love the Good and the Beautiful "so that when Reason at length comes to him, then bred as he has been, he will hold out his hands in welcome and recognize her because of the affinity he bears to her." Just Sentiments There is little chance that one who does not learn proper affections and just sentiments as a child will ever fully comprehend them. His knowledge, in short, will always be limited. What he can know will be determined by his sentiments, by dispositions and inclinations learned in childhood. A person who is not well habituated to virtue may come upon the fundamental ·principles of ethics, but he may never be able to grasp them properly. He comes upon them like an anthropologist stumbling upon tribal customs . He can describe them, write about them, analyze them, but he does not know them as an initiate knows them - even though the things he observes are his own cultural values. One cannot begin to understand the moral life until one begins to live it. Consequently, the autonomous moral explorer, because of his detached stance, is in no position to appreciate the practice of virtue, let alone practice it himself. What, then, is the proper form of education in regard to morality? It is, necessarily, an initiation, "men Fall 1 9 9 2 transmitting manhood to men," as C. S. Lewis puts it. And this is best accomplished not by direct moral exhortation but indirectly through example and practice. One cannot have classes in moral education. It is, rather, more like an apprentice learning from a master. "Lewis, like Aristotle," writes Gilbert Meilander, "believes that moral principles are learned indirectly from others around us, who serve as exemplars. And he, again like Aristotle, suggests that it will be extremely difficult to develop virtuous individuals apart from a virtuous society." Yet, even in the most virtuous of societies, adults, recognizing their own shortcomings, have seen the need to point to examples of moral wisdom and moral courage beyond themselves . Hence the reliance on heroic stories as the embodiment of cultural ideals. When virtues have fallen into desuetude, the need for stories about virtuous and courageous men, women, and children becomes more acute. A ware of this, Lewis created in The Chronicles of Narnia a literature of virtue of the type that can be considered both exemplar of and preparation for a mature morality. The Narnia Chonicles cerLETTERS from Santa F e pa g e nin e �FOR CLASSICAL AND HEROIC SOCIETIES AND FOR THOSE THAT SUSTAIN THOSE TRADITIONS, MORALITY IS NOT A MATTER OF FOLLOWING RULES OR MAKING RULES; IT HAS TO DO WITH ACQUIRING VIRTUE. p age t en -- tainly seem to embody Aristotle's dictum that the aim of education is to make the pupil like and dislike what he ought. But if heroic stories provide examples, we need to ask examples of what? It would be a mistake to look upon the heroes of myth and epic as examples of autonomous moral agents or inventors of new moralities (as Nietzsche did), just as it would be a mistake to look upon them as stoic rule-abiders. The heroes of such stories are not moral philosophers, nor are they stoic. They are virtuous, or they strive to be virtuous. For classical and heroic societies and for those that sustain those traditions, morality is not a matter of following rules or making rules; it has to do with acquiring virtue. The virtues displayed by Achilles are what hold our attention, not any set of maxims he may expound. It is his loyalty to his friends that matters, not his loyalty to principle. Virtues are displayed in his actions, not only in what he says. The heroic man is not a moral pioneer who charts new ethics; rather, he is someone who does what ought to be done. Even in the Gospel stories, the heroic theme is predominant. As I have written elsewhere, "there is nothing in Christ's attitude about himself to suggest that he saw himself mainly as a teacher. There is a strong suggestion that Jesus looked upon himself as someone who had a job to do. And the quality of that task was not unlike the quest of a Greek or Roman hero." Christ does what is required. He comes to do the will of him by whom he was sent. He lays down his life for his friends, not for the sake of a principle. Indeed, in the heroic literature there is usually very little question A Vision of Life Stories of virtue, courage and justice can and should play a central part in the formation of good habit, that is, in the formation of character. Stories provide a way of habitua ting children to virtue. They h elp to instill proper sentiments. They reinforce indirectly the more explicit moral teaching of family, church and school. They provide also a defense against the relentless process of desensitization tha t goes on in modern societies. And they provide a standard against which erosion of standards can be measured. In addition, stories expand the imagination. Moral development is not simply a m atter of becoming L E TT E R S fro m Sa n t a Fe F a/1 1992 about what has to be done (most of the moral dilemmas in the Gospels are posed by the Pharisees); the question is whether the hero can resist temptation and do what he ought to do. Will his training in the virtues see him through? What is revealed in heroic stories is a profoundly realistic appraisal of behavior under conditions of combat when it is dangerous to act as one ought or a price will have to be paid. When the hero is weary, outnumbered or alone, when his resources are depleted or temptation is overwhelming, he does better to rely on his acquired virtue than on his knack for moral philosophy. Likewise, most of us are thrown into situations where there is little time to weigh the moral pros and cons. Then, the best question we can ask is, what do good men and women do in such situations? We are more likely to find an answer to that question if our training includes a thorough exposure to stories of virtue. �more rational or acquiring decisionmaking skills. It has to do with vision, the way one looks at life. Indeed, moral evil and sin are sometimes described by theologians as an inability to see rightly. Conversely, moral improvement is often described (by very ordinary people as well as theologians) as the result of seeing things in a different light or seeing them for the first time. "I was blind but now I see" is more than a line from an old hymn; it is the way a great many people look at their moral growth. It is therefore entirely inadequate to explain morality in terms of developmental stages. The transformation of the moral life is rarely effected without a transformation of imagination. It follows that one of the central tasks of moral education is to nourish the imagination with rich and powerful images of the kind found in stories, myths, poems, biography, and drama. If we wish our children to grow up with a deep and adequate vision of life, we must provide a rich fund for them to draw on. old epics the superheros' qualities do not end with raw power. Moral literature need not be of epic proportions. There is also a place for stories of manners and duty, decency and virtue, loyalty and friendship on a less epic scale-stories that say, in effect: However ordinary people actually behave toward one another, this is how they ought to behave. The Little House on the Prairie, The Wind in the Willows, and The Hobbit (a combination of heroism and horniness) come to mind as examples of this type of literature. Younger children need stories that are similar but much shorter and can be told orally. It might be a mistake to inundate a child with too many stories. But it is important that the right kind of stories be repeated over and over until they are nearly learned by heart. After all, if repetition were not such an effective technique in the education of habits, we can be certain that the advertisers would long since have ceased to employ it. Pure Hearts and Kindly Kings Not just any stories will do, however. Though realistic stories about boys and girls just like oneself probably do no harm, they fail to enlarge the imagination in the way that heroic stories do. But we must also be clear about what we mean by a hero. Heroic stories link strength or cunning or resourcefulness with virtue. Galahad's strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure. Beowulf, who has the strength of thirty men in his grip, is also renowned as the "kindest of worldly kings." The cunning of Ulysses is used in the service of loyalty to his men. In the William Kilpatrick is professor of education at Boston College. His latest book, Why Tohnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong (Simon & Schuster, 1992) may well be one of the most powerful, and depressing, books of this decade. This is an excerpt of an article printed in Policy Review. Fall 1 992 LETTERS from Santa F e STORIES PROVIDE A WAY OF HABITUATING CHILDREN TO VIRTUE. page elev e n �TEACHING THE VIRTUES by Christina Hoff Sommers SOCIAL MORALITY IS ONLY HALF OF THE MORAL LIFE; THE OTHER HALF IS PRIVATE MORALITY Not very long ago, I published an article called "Ethics without Virtue" in which I criticized the way ethics is being taught in American colleges. I pointed out that there is an overemphasis on social policy questions, with little or no attention being paid to private morality. I noted that students taking college ethics are debating abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, DNA research, and the ethics of transplant surgery while they learn almost nothing about private decency, honesty, personal responsibility, or honor. Topics such as hypocrisy, self-deception, cruelty or selfishness rarely came up. I argued that the current style of ethics teaching which concentrated so much on social policy was giving students the wrong ideas about ethics. Social morality is only half of the moral life; the other half is private morality. I urged that we attend to both. A colleague of mine did not like what I said. She told me that in her classroom she would continue to focus on issues of social injustice. She taught about women's oppression, corruption in big business, multinational corporations and their transgressions in the Third World-that sort of thing. She said to me, "You are not going to have moral people until you have moral institutions. You will not have moral citizens until you have a moral government." She made it clear that I was wasting time and even doing harm by promoting bourgeois morality and the bourgeois virtues instead of awakening the social conscience of my students. At the end of the semester, she came into my office carrying a stack of exams and looking very upset. "What's wrong?" I asked. "They cheated on their social justice take-home finals. They plagiarized!" More than half of the students in her ethics class had copied long passages from the secondary literature. "What are you going to do?" I asked her. She gave me a self-mocking smile and said, "I'd like to borrow a copy of that article you wrote on ethics without virtue." A Hole in the Moral Ozone There have been major cheating scandals at many of our best universities. A recent survey reported in the Boston Globe says that 75 percent of all high school students admit to cheating; for college students the figure is 50 percent. A U.S. News and World Report survey asked college-age students if they would steal from an employer. Thirty-four percent said they would. Of people forty-five and over, six percent responded in the affirmative. Part of the problem is that so many students come to college dogmatically committed to a moral relativism that offers them no grounds to think that cheating is just wrong. I sometimes play a macabre game with first-year students, trying to find some act they will condemn as morally wrong: Torturing a child. Starving someone to death. Humiliating an invalid in a page tw e lve LETTERS from Santa Fe Fall 1992 �nursing home. The reply is often: "Torture, starvation and humiliation may be bad for you or me, but who are we to say they are bad for someone else?" Not all students are dogmatic relativists; nor are they all cheaters and liars. Even so, it is impossible to deny that there is a great deal of moral drift. The students' ability to arrive at reasonable moral judgments is severely, even bizarrely, affected. A Harvard University professor annually offers a large history class on the Second World War and the rise of the Nazis. Some years back, he was stunned to learn from his teaching assistant that the majority of students in the class did not believe that anyone was really to blame for the Holocaust. The graduate assistant asserted that if these Harvard students were sitting in judgment at Nuremberg they would have let everyone off. No one was to blame. In the students ' minds, the Holocaust was like a natural cataclysm: It was inevitable and unavoidable. The professor refers to his students' attitude about the past as "no-fault history." How Ethics Courses Have Changed First, a bit of history. Let me remind you of how ethics was once taught in American colleges. In the nineteenth century, the ethics course was a high point of college life. It was taken in the senior year, and was usually taught by the president of the college who would uninhibitedly urge the students to become morally better and stronger. The senior ethics course was in fact the culmination of the students' college experience. But as the social sciences began to flourish in the early twentieth century, ethics courses gradually lost prominence until they became just one of several electives offered by philosophy departments. By the mid-1960s, enrollment in courses on moral philosophy reached an all-time low and, as one historian of higher education put it, "college ethics was in deep trouble". At the end of the '60s, there was a rapid turnaround. To the surprise of many a department chair, applied ethics courses suddenly proved to be very popular. Philosophy departments began to attract unprecedented numbers of students to courses in medical ethics, business ethics, ethics for everyday life, ethics for lawyers, for social workers, for nurses, for journalists. More recently, the dubious behavior of some politicians and financiers has added to public concern over ethical standards which in turn has contributed to the feeling that college ethics is needed. Today American colleges and universities are offering thousands of well-attended courses in applied ethics. I too have been teaching applied ethics courses for several years, but my enthusiasm for them tapered off when I saw how the students reacted. I was especially disturbed by comments students made again and again on the course evaluation forms, "I learned there was no such thing as right or wrong, just good or bad arguments." Or, "I learned there is no such thing as morality." I asked myself what it was about these classes that was fostering this sort of moral agnosticism and skepticism. Perhaps the students themFall 1992 r LETTERS from Santa F e IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF A COURSE DEALING WITH HARD AND CONTROVERSIAL CASES, THE CONTEMPORARY STUDENT MAY EASILY FIND THE VERY IDEA OF A STABLE MORAL TRADITION TO BE AN ARCHAIC ILLUSION. pag e thirte e n �--selves were part of the problem. Perhaps it was the high school experience that led them to become moral agnostics. Even so, I felt that my classes were doing nothing to change them. The course I had been giving was altogether typical. At the beginning of the semester we studied a bit of moral theory, going over the strengths and weaknesses of Kantianism, utilitarianism, social contract theory and relativism. We then took up topical moral issues such as abortion, censorship, capital punishment, world hunger, and affirmative action. Naturally, I felt it my job to present careful and well-argued positions on all sides of these popular issues. But this atmosphere of argument and counterargument was reinforcing the idea that all moral questions have at least two sides, i.e., that all of ethics is controversial. Perhaps this reaction is to be expected in any ethics course primarily devoted to issues on which it is natural to have a wide range of disagreement. In a course specifically devoted to dilemmas and hard cases, it is almost impossible not to give the student the impression that ethics itself has no solid foundation. The "Plain Moral Facts" It will, I think, be granted that the average student today does not come to college steeped in a religious or ethical tradition in which he or she has uncritical confidence. In the atmosphere of a course dealing with hard and controversial cases, the contemporary student may easily find the very idea of a stable moral tradition to be an archaic illusion. I am suggesting that we may have some responsibility here for providing the student with what the philosopher Henry Sidgwick called "moral common sense." (Sometimes he spoke of "established morality" as it is commonly understood and accepted.) More generally, I am suggesting that we should assess some of the courses we teach for their edificatory effect. Our responsibility as teachers goes beyond purveying information about the leading ethical theories and in developing dialectical skill in moral casuistry. The Philosophy of Virtue If one accepts the idea that moral edification is not an improper desideratum in the teaching of ethics, then the question arises: What sort of course in ethics is effective? What ethical teachings are naturally edificatory? My own experience leads me to recommend a course on the philosophy of virtue. Here, Aristotle is the best place to begin. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Augustine, Kant and even Mill wrote about vice and virtue. And there is an impressive contemporary literature on the subject. But the locus classicus is Aristotle. Students find a great deal of plausibility in Aristotle's theory of moral education, as well as personal relevance in what he says about courage, generosity, temperance and other virtues. I have found that an exposure to Aristotle makes an immediate inroad on dogmatic relativism, indeed the tendency to dismiss morality as relative to taste or social fashion rapidly diminishes and may vanish altogether. Most students find the idea of developing virtuous character traits naturally .appealing. Once the student becomes engaged with the problem of what kind of pa ge fou r t e en L E TTERS from Santa F e Fall 1992 �person to be, and how to become that kind of person, the problems of ethics become concrete and practical and, for many a student, morality itself is thereafter looked on as a natural and even inescapable personal undertaking. I have not come across students who have taken a course in the philosophy of virtue saying that they have learned there is no such thing as morality. The writings of Aristotle and of other philosophers of virtue are full of argument and controversy, but students who read them with care are not tempted to say they learned "there is no right or wrong, only good or bad arguments." Is There Moral Knowledge? Is there really such a thing as moral knowledge? The reply to that is an emphatic "Yes." Have we not learned a thing or two over the past several thousand years of civilization? To pretend we know nothing about basic decency, about human rights, about vice and virtue, is fatuous or disingenuous. Of course we know that gratuitous cruelty and political repression are wrong, that kindness and political freedom are rightand good. Why should we be the first society in history that finds itself hamstrung in the vital task of passing along its moral tradition to the next generation? Some opponents of directive moraFeducation argue that it could be a form of brainwashing. That is a pernicious confusion. To brainwash is to diminish someone's capacity for reasoned judgment It is perversely misleading to say that helping children to develop habits of truth telling or fair play threatens their ability to make reasoned choices. Quite the contrary: Good moral habits enhance one's capacity for ration.al judgments. The paralyzing fear of indoctrinating children is even greater in high schools than it is in elementary schools. One favored teaching technique, allegedly avoiding indoctrination, is dilemma ethics. Children are presented with abstract moral dilemmas: Seven people are in a lifeboat with provisions for four-what should they do? Or Lawrence Kohlberg's famous case of Heinz and the stolen drug. Should the indigent Heinz, whose dying wife WHY SHOULD WE BE THE FIRST SOCIETY IN HISTORY THAT FINDS ITSELF HAMSTRUNG IN THE VITAL TASK OF PASSING ALONG ITS MORAL TRADITIONS TO THE NEXT GENERATION? needs medicine, steal it? When high school students study ethics at all, it is usually in the form of pondering such dilemmas or in the form of debates on social issues: abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment and the like. Directive moral education is out of favor. Storytelling is out of fashion. Fall 1992 LETTERS from S a nta Fe pag e f ift e en �THE BEST MORAL TEACHING INSPIRES STUDENTS BY MAKING THEM KEENLY AWARE THAT THEIR OWN CHARACTER IS AT STAKE. p age s i x t e e n Let's consider for a moment just how the current fashion in dilemmas differs from the older approach to moral education which often used moral tales and parables to instill moral principles in students in the primary grades. Saul Bellow asserts that the survival of Jewish culture would be inconceivable without the stories that gave point and meaning to the Jewish moral tradition. One such story, included in a collection of traditional Jewish tales that Bellow edited, is called "If Not Higher." I sketch it here to contrast the story-approach with the dilemma-approach in primary and secondary education, but the moral of the contrast also applies to the teaching of ethics at the college level as well: There was once a rabbi in a small Jewish village in Russia who vanished every Friday morning for several hours. The devoted villagers boasted that during these hours their rabbi ascended to Heaven to talk with God. A skeptical newcomer arrived in town, determined to discover where the rabbi really was. One Friday morning the newcomer hid near the rabbi's house, watched him rise, say his prayers and put on the clothes of a peasant. He saw him take an ax and go into the forest, chop down a tree and gather a large bundle of wood. Next the rabbi proceeded to a shack in the poorest section of the village in which lived an old woman and her sick son. He left them the wood which was enough for the week. The rabbi then quietly returned to his own house. The story concludes that the newcomer stayed on in the village and became a disciple of the rabbi. And w henever he hears one of his fellow villagers say, "On Friday morning our rabbi ascends all the way to Heaven," the newcomer quietly adds, "If not higher." In a moral dilemma such as Kohlberg's Heinz stealing the drug, or the lifeboat case, there are no obvious heroes or villains. Not only do the characters lack moral personality, but they exist in a vacuum outside of traditions and social arrangements that shape their conduct in the problematic situations confronting them . In a dilemma there is no obvious right and wrong, no clear vice and virtue. The dilemma may engage the students' minds; it only marginally engages their emotions, their moral sensibilities. The issues are finely balanced, listeners are on their own and they individually decide for themselves. As one critic of dilemma ethics has observed, one cannot imagine parents p assing down to their children the tale of Heinz and the stolen drug. By contrast, in the story of the rabbi and the skeptical outsider, it is not up to the listener to decide w hether or not the rabbi did the right thing. The moral message is clear: "Here is a good man-merciful, compassionate and actively helping someone weak and vulnerable. Be like that person." The message is contagiou s. Even the skeptic gets the point. Stories and parables are not always appropriate for high school or college ethics courses, but the literary classics certainly are. To understand King Lear, Oliver Twist, Huckleberry Finn or Middlemarch requires that the reader have some understanding of (and sympathy with) what the author is saying about the moral ties that bind the characters and that hold in place the social fabric in which they play their roles. Take something like filial obligation. One moral of King Lear is that society cannot survive w hen filial contempt becomes the norm. Literary figures can thus provide students w ith the moral p aradigms that Aristotle thought were essential to moral education. L E TTERS fro m S a n t a Fe F a ll 1992 �I am not suggesting that moral puzzles and dilemmas have no place in the ethics curriculum. To teach something about the logic of moral discourse and the practice of moral reasoning in resolving conflicts of principles is clearly important. But casuistry is not the place to start, and, taken by itself, dilemma ethics tends to give the student the impression that ethical thinking is a lawyer's game. Three Steps Towards Virtue What I am recommending is not new, it has worked before, and it is simple: 1. Schools should have behavior codes that emphasize civility, kindness and honesty. 2. Teachers should not be accused of brainwashing children when they insist on basic civility, decency, honesty and fairness. 3. Children should be told stories that reinforce goodness. In , high school and college, students should be reading, studying and discussing the moral classics. I am suggesting that teachers must help children become acquainted with their moral heritage in literature, in religion and in philosophy. I am suggesting that virtue can be taught, and that effective moral education appeals to the emotions as well as to the mind. The best moral teaching inspires students by making them keenly aware that their own character is at stake. Christina Hoff Sommers is Associate Professor of Philosophy , Clark University. This article is taken from Imprimis, November 1991 . Fa ll 1992 LETT ERS f r om San t a Fe page sevent e e n �LEARNING GOODNESS by James Bond Stockdale I KNEW THAT CIVIC VIRTUE, THE PLACING OF THE VALUE OF THAT SOCIETY ABOVE ONE'S PERSONAL INTERESTS, WAS NOT ONLY ADMIRABLE, IT WAS CRUCIAL TO SELFRESPECT. pa ge e i g h t ee n The best education, the best preparation for a full and successful life surely entails a proper blend of classical and contemporary studies. While we pursue the keys to the kingdom of modernity-studies in political science and economics and high technology-we need to understand the importance of a broad background in the readings of antiquity, those readings that form the basis of our civilization. In times of duress, in war especially, is that classical background important. The Stoics said that "Character is fate." In my life, education has been fate. I became what I learned, or maybe I should say I became the distillation of what fascinated me most as I learned it. Only three years after I left graduate school, I participated in the refounding of my own civilization after doomsday, when the giant doors of an Old World dungeon had slammed shut and locked me and a couple hundred other Americans in-in total silence, in solitary confinement, in leg irons, in blindfolds for w eeks at a time, in antiquity, in a political prison. That refounded civilization became our salvation. Stripped to nothing, nothing but the instincts and intelligence of the ancients, we improvised a communication system dredged up from inklings of a distant past (actually the tap code of Polybius , a second-ce ntury Gree k historian with a fl air for cryptography), and lived on comradeship in a polity tha t would L E TTERS fro m San ta Fe have been a credit to Polybius' Athens. The spiritual power (not necessarily religious) that seeped into us as we surreptitiously joined forces against our common enemy came as a surprise. In my solitude the impact of this unexpected spiritual power sometimes caused me to wonder. Does modernity deaden our noblest impulses? Does it smother or atrophy the power of the human spirit, the power of human nature? Do the readings of ancient times, the classics, serve merely to give us insight into the events of the past? Or do not the texts of those self-contained cultures of antiquity portray human power in all its vibrant potential? Do they not contain evidence of a more imaginative and fundamental grasp of the essence of being human than can be found even in 20th century texts that have since joined the classics on the humanities shelves? In Homer's immortal epic, The Iliad, as Hector is about to leave the gates of Troy to fight Achillesknowing, as he must have known, that he would lose and he would die-he says goodbye to his wife and baby son at the gates, and the baby starts to cry, frightened by the nodding of the plumes on his father' s shining helmet. Some would think the tale of the GreekTrojan War to be an irrelevant relic of bygone days. Some would think it should be stricken from the reading list because it glamorizes war. Some would think that now at last, with rea son to guide us, we can scoff at a warrior's suicidal obligations. But others of us react quite differently, seeing in that scen e a snapshot of the a geless huma n predicament: Hector's duty, his wife's tragedy, Troy's necessity, the Fa /1 199 2 �baby's cry .... My reaction, of course, is the latter, not only because I am a romantic by nature, but because by the time I first read The Iliad I had lived in antiquity (and I am not referring to the lack of electricity or plumbing). I had lived in a selfcontained culture, a prison culture I watched grow among men of goodwill under pressure. I knew what it was to be a human being who could be squashed like a bug without recourse to law, and I knew that the culture, the society, that preserved me had to be preserved or nobody had anything to cling to. I knew that civic virtue, the placing of the value of that society above one's personal interests, was not only admirable, it was crucial to self-respect. And I knew that to preserve that culture, symbolic battles had to be fought before real battles could start. I knew that obligations, particularly love and self-sacrifice, were the glue that made a man whole in this primitive element, and I knew that under the demands of these obligations being "reasonable" was a luxury that often could not be afforded. I also knew during this prison existence that I was being shown something good-that life can have a spiritual content one can almost reach out and touch. I suppose it can always have that, but I was used to the idea of it being fuzzed up, powdered, fluffed, and often ridiculed here in man made modernity, where changing the world takes precedence over understanding it, understanding man himself. The same message comes through in the writings of Fyodor Dostoyevski, Arthur Koestler, and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. They' ve been where I've been. So had Miguel Cervantes. This future author of Don Quixote was a young officer in the Spanish army taken prisoner after the Battle of Lepanto in the 16th century. He spent seven years in an Algiers political prison. Same story: "Confess your crimes," "Discredit yourself," "Disavow your roots." He was tortured to disavow Christianity and would get amnesty and go home if he would disavow it. I was made much the same offer. I was to disavow "American Imperialism." Good boy, Cervantes, you hung in too. You knew how this age-old game is played. Political prisons are not just sources of fables of the past. They could just as easily inspire the literature of the future. Unable to tolerate dissent, totalitarian governments must have them. How else to suppress and discredit their enemies within? You know, the life of the mind is a wonder-the life of the mind in solitude, the life of the mind in extremis, the life of the mind when the body's nervous system is under attack. If you want to break a man's spirit, and if your victim's will is strong, you've got to get physical. Sometimes you might think that you can unhinge strong people with psychological mumbo jumbo. Sorry, there is no such thing as brainwashing. But even physical hammering will not alone change all hard-set attitudes. The real method to jellify those attitudes, that is, to extract those seemingly heartfelt "confessions," is the artful and long-term imposition of fear and guilt. Solitary confinement and tourniquet-tight rope bindings are mere catalysts for the fear and guilt conditioning. Remember, I'm talking about strong-willed victims. They're going to make you hurt F a /119 92 LETT E RS f rom Sant a Fe pa ge n int ee n �them. They know from experience that the compliance extracted by brute force is in no way so spiritually damaging as that given away on a mere threat. And they have learned from experience that in the end it is a spiritual battle. The leak in the dike always starts from within. How does the mind of the victim respond to these challenges? First, regarding the loneliness, the solitude: It's not as bad as you think. Don't forget, the time factor is stretched out way beyond most three to four weeks. It ends when it suddenly dawns on him that he'll have no such luck; he's stuck with himself. Almost everybody then sets himself up in a ritualistic life. Something deep-seated in human nature likes, feels safe with, repetition-a time for this, and a time for that, repeated regularly every day. You get to thinking about how liturgies of worship must have gotten started in some prehistoric clan. Your mind drifts to many anthropological questions. How do institutions and governments get "THE CHALLENGE OF EDUCATION IS NOT TO PREPARE A PERSON FOR SUCCESS, BUT TO PREPARE HIM FOR FAILURE." IT IS IN DISASTER, NOT SUCCESS, THAT THE HEROES AND THE BUMS REALLY GET SORTED OUT page t we n t y psychological experiments. There was a professor at Stanford who got national attention several years ago for locking some students in the basement of a library for a few days, and then writing a book about his observations of their behavior. I laughed when I read it. You don't know the first thing about a person until he has been in the cooler for a couple of months. He has to first go through the stage when he is preoccupied with going insane. That's a normal prelude without lasting significance. Figure on that phase lasting for the first started? Are they the product of a man on a white horse? Does some powerful person impose rule: "We gotta get organized; here are the tribe's rules; break'em and I'll cave your skull in." I doubt it. When you're scared, you don't feel the urge to take charge. And when you 're expected to, by virtue of heredity in clan or tribe, or seniority, for sure, among military prisoners, on first contact you seem compelled to say something becoming a well-brought-up American boy, like: "In these circumstances when you are being threatened or tor- LETTERS f r o m S a n ta F e F a ll 1 9 92 �tured to do things that offend your very being, I can't bring myself to order you to do this or that. Everyone must have the autonomy to choose the best alternatives facing him. Do the best you can and God bless you." How civilized and compassionate! But it will never sell. Those fine young people in trouble won't let you get away with that. Their response is sure to be something like this: "You have no right to piously tell us each to seek out the good, and then back out of the picture . You are in charge here, and it's your duty to tell us what the good is. We deserve to sleep at night, feeling that at least we're doing something right in all hewing to what our leader says . We deserve the self-respect that comes with knowing we are resisting in an organized manner. We expect you to tell us to take torture before we comply with any of their demands. Give us the list!" There's nothing rational about such a reaction. Anybody could see that we probably weren't going to win the battle. But on the other hand, as the veteran prisoner Fyodor Dostoyevski aptly noted, "Man's most deep desires in life under pressure are not for a rationally advantageous choice, but for an independent choice." But believe it or not, as time wears on in solitary you get better at dealing with these matters. The ultimate accommodation with them comes from focusing intensely on leading a very, very clean and honest life, mentally and otherwiseand you find yourself being consumed in a strange, lasting and unexpected highmindedness. By this, I don't mean "joyfulness," and I particularly don't mean "optimism." Fa ll 1992 What I mean by the setting in of highmindedness is the gradual erosion of natural selfishness among people of goodwill facing a common danger over time. The more intense the common danger, the quicker the "me-first" selfishness melts. In our situation, at about the two-year point, I believe most of us were thinking of that faceless friend next door-the sole point of contact we had with our civilization, that lovely intricate human thing we had never seen-in terms of love in the highest sense. By later comparing notes with others, I found I was not alone in becoming so noble and righteous in that solitude that I could hardly stand myself. People would willingly absorb physical punishment rather than let it fall to their comrades; questions arose in my mind about the validity of the much-talked about instinct of selfpreservation. Solzhenitsyn describes his feelings of high-mindedness in his Gulag writings in words like these: It was only when I lay there on the rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not between states nor between classes nor between political parties but right through every human heart, through all human hearts. And that is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me, "Thank you, prison, for having been in my life." LETTERS from Santa Fe pa ge twe nty- one �Was I a victim? Not when I became fully engaged, got into the life of unity with comrades, helping others, and being encouraged by them. So, many times, I would find myself whispering to myself after an exhilarating wall-tap message exchange: "I am right where I belong; I am right where I was meant to be." In all honesty, I say to myself, "What a wonderful life I have led." No two of us are the same, but to me the wonder of my life is in escaping the life Captain McWhirr had programmed for himself in Joseph Conrad's typhoon: "to go skimming over the years of existence to sink gently into a placid grave, ignorant of life to the last, without ever having been made to see all it may contain of perfidy, of violence, of terror." And the author adds, "There are on sea and land such men thus fortunate-or thus disdained-by destiny .. ." Phil Rhinelander, my philosophy mentor at Stanford, died a short time ago. We were preparing a book together, and consequently I was with him almost every day at the last. One of the last things we talked about was our agreement on a point we had each separately stated publicly: "The challenge of edupage t wen t y- t w o LETTERS from San t a Fe cation is not to prepare a person for success, but to prepare him for failure." It is in disaster, not success, that the heroes and the bums really get sorted out. Always striving for true education is the best insurance against losing your bearings, your perspective, in the fact of disaster, in the face of failure. I came home from prison to discover something I had forgotten; in my old Webster's collegiate dictionary I had pasted a quotation from Aristotle: "Education is an ornament in prosperity and a refuge in adversity." I had lived in the truth of that for all those years. Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale served for 34 years as a Navy officer. Shot down over North Vietnam, he was the senior Navy prisoner of war in Hanoi for eight years. He is a former president of the Naval War College and currently a Senior Research Fellow at The Hoover Institution. Recently a candidate for the Vice President of the U. S., Adm. Stockdale was on the St. John's College Board of Visitors and Governors from 1981 to 1987. This is an excerpt of a speech he gave in 1987. Fall 1 992 �ANNOUNCEMENTS Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics at St. John's College Santa Fe, New Mexico The institute offers a one-year, graduate level, certificate program in the classic texts of India and China. Among the many works to be read are: Rgveda, Mahabharata, Upani~ads, Bhagavadglta, Analects of Confucius, I Ching, Tao-te Ching, Writings of Mo Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and Han Pei Tzu. Participants will also choose a language tutorial in Classical Chinese or Sanskirt. All classes will be conducted by discussion and are scheduled twice weekly in the late afternoon and evening. Tuition is $1,500 for each semester. For further information write to: Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 "Zr 505/988-4361, Fax 505/989-9269 What college has produced two Rhodes Scholars in three years from a student body of less than 1000? We are proud to announce that St. John's College senior Jeffrey Seidman has been awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. Mr. Seidman is the second Rhodes Scholar selected from the college in the past three years. Mr. Seidman will study philosophy, economics and politics at Oxford and intends eventually to teach philosophy at the college level. We are very grateful to the Laurel Foundation for their generous support of LETTERS from Santa Fe. r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, To our readers, If you know someone who might be interested in receiving information regarding the programs offered at St. John's College please fill out this form and return it to St. John's College, 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599. Name of interested person (s) Address Possible area(s) of interest- D Undergraduate D Graduate D Eastern Studies Thank you, f}L f~ / John Agresto President, Santa Fe F al l 1 99 2 LETT E R S fro m Santa Fe pa g e t we nt y - three I I I I I I I I I I I �PROFILE St. John's College: Is an independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western civilization. The program requires four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty ratio is 8:1. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55% men and 45 % women, from 30 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20 %, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact the Graduate Institute in Santa Fe (505) 982-3691 ext. 249 or in Annapolis (301) 263 - 2371. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 24 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Fall 1992 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Fall 1992 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John’s College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1992 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Oldenquist, Andrew Delattre, Edwin J. Kilpatrick, William Kirk Sommers, Christina Hoff Stockdale, James B. Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1992_Fall Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/62e4158f53c67142ba800a418192765a.pdf be1053d3539eb8d27d0856e35781d8c6 PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College-Santa Fe, New Mexico Fall 1993 RESEARCH AND TEACHING INSIDE THE IMPACT OF SPECIALIZATION page 2 THE FUTURE OF TEACHING pages THE TYRANNICAL MACHINE page9 THE CHARGE THAT RESEARCH IS NARROW AND OPAQUE IS DECADES OUT OF DATE page 14 SENSE AND NONSENSE page 17 Something has happened to teaching. Simply put, at some point, I know not when, it stopped being the highest function and core calling of many professors. At some point it dawned on administrators in higher education that it was easier to count books and articles in refereed journals, or check off the number of times an article was cited elsewhere, than make the difficult judgments required on something as subjective as good teaching. As everyone now knows, the money and the rewards are less in teaching than in research and publishing. My favorite example is not actually from the U.S. but from a university in Mexico City where, as one of our tutors at St. John's discovered, you get points for various activities. For instance, you will get 3300 points for publishing a research paper. For teaching a course for one semester, you will get 210 points. For writing a textbook or a computer package, you will get 6600 points. For directing a thesis, you will get 220 points. For getting a patent you will get almost 7000 points; if you're on a thesis committee, merely 60. And he who wraps up the most points gets the promotion and the higher pay. The status of teaching in America may not be as cut and dried as it is south of the border, but I recently received a request from a very good foundation for a list of the best teachers of history here at my college. Why? To reward them with a year off from classroom teaching. The personnel offices of big corporations repeatedly say how highly they value a liberal arts education, and then consistently hire people with technical or business degrees. So also do universities consistently proclaim their devotion to good teaching and consistently reward something else. This emphasis on the value of research is particularly odd in the humanities, where research, rather than widening our view of important matters, has probably subtracted from the sum of human knowledge. I'm not going to get into an argument over whether or not some research scholarship does not, at times, prove a great benefit for classroom teachingof course it might. Or that researchers are not great teachers--0f course some are. All I mean to say is the obvious as well as the empirically verifiable: that less time is spent on teaching today than before, that fewer university rewards are given for teaching, and that where there are great scholar-teachers, such benefits as have accrued have accrued to their scholarship, and often works to the detriment of their hours in the classroom. With the selection of the articles in this issue, I have tried to present something of the history of the conflict between research and teaching as well as anecdotal evidence of the problems it leaves in its wake. �THE IMPACT OF SPECIALIZATION by Frederick Rudolph Subjects and courses were often offered not because students wanted or needed them but because an essentially autonomous group of academic professionals could and would teach nothing else. pa ge t wo The American liberal arts college was of pre-industrial origin. Its concern with the education of gentlemen, its lack of sympathy with many of the egalitarian and exploitive impulses of the age, and its Christian orientation suffused the classical curriculum and the humanistic style of the old colleges. The American university, on the other hand, was a child of the new order, a product of the Industrial Revolution eager to play a central role in the refinement and specialization of knowledge and in the training of cadres of experts to keep the machinery of society running. Once the university began to d efine the mission of American hig her ed uca ti on, the colleges were essentially contrary institutions, evoking the old values, suspicious of much that specialization celebrated , prefe rring to r egard higher education as primarily a center for humanistic study, social critici s m , and e thical concern. Increasingly the colleges found themselves at a disadvantage, even anachronistic in an age that was being defin e d by speciali s t s, corporate bureaucracies, g rowth, and consolidation. The curricular battles of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries must in some ways be seen as s truggles between the demands and needs of the professionals- including the professional academicians- and the L E TT E R S fr om S anta Fe traditional concerns and purposes of the colleges as sources of enlightened and responsible community leadership. The impact of the universities on the undergraduate curriculum was devastating. They promoted old vocations learned on the job into new professions, certified by the universities' own professional schools. They dignified old utilities with new learning, revealing an appetite for new subjects and a receptivity to applied science that allied them openly with the industrial order. They identified themselves as agents of social mobility by offering the courses that appeared to lead the way into corporate and government bureaucracies. In asserting the equality of all subjects, as did Ezra Cornell and Charles William Eliot each in his own way, they invited an expanding clientele to join them-the universities-in their own version of the meritocratic bureaucratic system. It is no wonder that it wa s difficult to keep a clear vision of purpose, to give order to academic priorities, or even to remember that higher education had once revealed more concern for the conduct of society than for the ambitions of individual men, more interest in shaping a human community than in shaping individual careers. In an a tmosphere of confused purpose, jumbled priorities, and forgetfulness, the univ ersities and the colleges that aped them had no difficulty in offering a course of study equ ally confused, jumbled, and forgetful. ***** Perhaps this is the place to dispel the false dich o tomy tha t often clouds any con sideration of the useful a nd the liberal in hig h er F a ll 199 3 �education. Liberal studies were from the beginning eminently useful even if they were not specific in their vocational focus. The skills and attitudes of an educated man were expected to be vocationally useful. It was not enough, however, for a liberal study to be useful; it also had to possess the dimension that made it liberal. The vocational subjects, the professional curriculum, the technical utilities that made their way into the colleges could not justify their liberal pretensions without providing that "something else" that differentiated liberal studies from the rest. What was that something else? The difference between a liberal subject and one that was not was the degree to which there was an emphasis on cognitive skills, rational analysis, the stuff it took to be communicative-clear, expressive, imaginative. A liberal course of study invited contemplation, a look inward, an assessment, even a reassessment of self and society. "Something" went on in the old colleges that helped their graduates to be recognized as possessing a certain style, a moral stance, a reliability in taste and values, a capacity to analyze and even to imagine derived from that amalgam of experiences known as "going to college." It was precisely that "something" that liberal arts colleges nurtured. The growth of professionalism changed who went to college, what they sought there, and who taught there. The consequences for liberal learning, associated as it was with an earlier professionalism, a narrow governing elite, and a less secular orientation, were dramatic-challenging and subversive but not fatal, for Fa /1 1993 much was missing in the new order, as attractive as its dynamism and energy and authority may have been. And that "much" included a social ethic, an element of human concern and regard for community. The professionalization of the professors and the proliferation of academic specialists helped to fuel the institutional rivalries that made academic life very much like industrial life. The competition for professors, the rivalries between departments, the focus on size and numbers and growth, and the appearance of endless numbers of specialists in a growing number of departments led to a kind of acquisitiveness and imperialism that made students both objects of conquest and victims of professional indifference. To that end the curriculum was an expression of the power of the professional academicians. Subjects a nd courses were often offered not because students wanted or needed them but because an essentially autonomous group of academic professionals could and would t eac h nothin g e l se. To co mpen sate for the unpalatable offerings of one kind of academic specialist, the institutions acknowledged their responsibilities to the student clients and the need to bolster enrollments by offering students what they wanted in the way of LETTER S from S anta Fe undemanding courses and careeroriented programs in the neoprofessional and technical studies. Ironically, when the professors abandoned a curriculum that they thought students needed, they substituted for it one that, instead, catered either to what the professors needed or what the students wanted. The results confirmed the authority of the professors and students but they robbed the curriculum of any authority at all. The reaction of students to all this activity in the curriculum was brilliant. They concluded that the curriculum really didn't matter. Their response was an accelerating growth of the extracurriculum, an explosion of fraternities, sororities, and athletic teams that in one sense over w helmed the course of study. Nothing is more revealing of the depth of this point of view than the failed effort of many institutions, including Harvard in the 1890s, to reduce the course to three years. Students would have none of it: they were not there for the courses. They were there for the fun, the sociability, the experiences that gave shape to character, personality, and individual promise. Even as the professional academicians were insinuating intellectual focus into the curriculum, moving away from values and ethics and all those s ticky questions that the classical college was comfortable with, the students were relocating such concerns in their fraternities and athletic teams. It would be embarrassing if widely known, but the heir to Mark Hopkin's mantle was not the new professional professor of philosophy but the football p age thr ee �coach. An elective curriculum allowed students to get what they wanted, but what they wanted was not really very much, since they had long since learned that the jobs they would one day hold depended far less on the courses they took than on the firmness of their handshake and the directness of their eye. * * * ** Out there in the real world employers who say that they prefer business or engineering majors really do not care very much about the technical content of undergraduate education. They know as well as the rest of us that most of what makes a person effective on the job is learned on the job, something that anyone with a Ph.D. degree knows without having to be told. What that business or engineering major means to an employer is that the young man or woman in question has not been contaminated by the liberal arts, subverted by the liberal ethos. If the American college graduate is weak in analysis and the spirit of inquiry, unable to communicate in his own or any other language clearly and effectively, and with it all, ethically unsure and ignorant of his own history and culture, the responsibility lies not with the schools or with college and university presidents, nor with the politicians or the people, but with the professors. They have the power to change the curriculum. They should not be allowed to get away with pointing the finger of responsibility elsewhere. Professionalism among the professors, their narrow specialization, the complete neglect in their training of any concern with teaching or with any professional responsibility other than to scholarship, are conditions that inhibit optimism about whether even liberal arts colleges can in fact teach liberally. Too many teachers of liberal subjects are so far gone into specialization and into the scientific understanding of their specialties that the challenges of teaching, of bringing students into a humanistic relationship with their subjects, are beyond their interest or capacity. And, these days, the uncertainties of the academic job market and the territorial behavior that goes along with academic departments all but disqualify the professors from thinking creatively and responsibly about what a comprehensive and coherent college education ought to be. But, this is where any reform must begin. The professors have the power. They must be encouraged to use it responsibly. Excerpted from: "The Power of Professors: The Impact of Specialization and Professionalization on the Curriculum" that originally appeared in Change magazine, May/June 1984. SCHOLARS AND SOCIETY From "Scholars and Society," a speech by Lynne Cheney, former chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities, to the American Council of Learned Societies, New York, April 15, 1988. When new theoretical interests are added to specialization, the problem of communication becomes even more severe. Not only does the public fail to understand us; sometimes we don't even understand each other. Last month, a professor at South Puget Sound Community College handed me a current issue of a well-known scholarly journal. He wanted to point out a long article in it that he regarded as largely impenetrable. One sentence in the article-part of an explanation for a three-part chart-reads as follows: Second, the denotative-connotative-stereoscopic triplet is indebted to David Bleich's idea of language as a Casirerian "symbolic form" capable of creating knowledge that is "always a re-cognition because it is a seeing through one perspective superimposed in [sic] another in such a way that the one perspective does not appear to be prior to the other" (a process described by Jean Piaget as "the internal reciprocal assimilation of schemata"), the kind of knowledge occasioned "when we 'get' a joke; more specifically and pertinently, such "stereoscopic knowledge" involves language evoking the "perspectival possibilities" of always interdependent denotation and connotation." The Puget Sound professor would probably not have taken the trouble to point out this article, except for the fact that its topic is how to teach English. p age fo ur LETTERS f r o m S anta F e F a /11993 �I THE FUTURE OF TEACHING by William Arrowsmith abandon liberal education so that specialization can begin with matriculation, and when he advocates this in order to reconcile the conflicting claims of research and teaching, it should be obvious even to the skeptical that education is being strangled in its citadel, and strangled furthermore on behalf of the crassest technocracy. I find it difficult to imagine the rationalization of these salaried wardens of a great, ecumenical tradition, who apparently view themselves and the institutions they administer as mere servants of national and professional interests. I am suggesting what will doubtless seem paradox or treason: There is no necessary link between scholarship and education, or between research and culture, and in actual practice scholarship is no longer a significant educational force . Scholars, to be sure, are unprecedentedly powerful, but their power is professional and technocratic; as educators they have been eagerly disqualifying themselves for more than a century, and their disqualification is now nearly total. The scholar has disowned the student-that is, the student who is not a potential scholar-and the student has reasonably retaliated by abandoning the scholar. This, I believe, is the only natural reading of what I take to be a momentous event: the secession of the student from the institutions of higher learning on the grounds that they no longer educate and are therefore, in his word, irrelevant. By making education the slave of scholarship, the university has renounced its responsibility to human culture and its old proud claim to possess, as educator and molder of men, an ecumenical function. It has disowned in short what teaching has always meant; a care and concern for the future of man, a Platonic love of the species, not for what it is, but what it might be. It is a momentous refusal. I do not exaggerate. When the president of Cornell seriously proposes that the university should ** * ** The Colleges I can think of no more conspicuous failure of leadership than in the liberal arts colleges. With a few notable exceptions, the record of F all 1 993 L E TTERS from S an f a Fe ***** What students want is not necessarily what they need; but in this case it is the students who are right and the universities that are wrong . Here, unmistakably, we have students concerned to ask the crucial questions-identity, meaning, right and wrong, the good lifeand they get in response not bread but a stone. Almost without exception the response of the universities to this profound hunger for education, for compelling examples of human courage and compassionate intelligence, has been mean, parochial, uncomprehending or cold. Above all, cold. Why, you ask, is teaching held in contempt? Because it has become contemptible by indifference. Teaching has been fatally trivialized by scholarship which has become trivial. ... we have students concerned to ask the crucial questions-identity, meaning, right and wrong, the good lifeand they get in response not bread but a stone. pa ge f i ve �the college is one of failure, at least if judged by its own claims . Whatever else it may be, Socratic it is not, in faculty, in style, in results. This I take to be a matter of fact. Certainly it is hard to imagine a more damningly documented indictment of the liberal arts college than that of the Jacob study, with its bleak conclusion that, apart from three or four colleges, the effect of college teaching on student values is simply nil, zero, and that what from within . They have recruited their faculties heavily from the major graduate institutions, and these recruits have inevitably altered the tone and finally the function of the colleges. There has doubtless been pressure from the graduate schools, but for the most part the colleges have consented to the process. And they are now in the ludicrous position of proudly claiming, on the one hand, that seventy-odd percent of their gradu- small change occurs comes from the student subculture. The conclusion is the more devastating because it is precisely on the claim to teach that the American college stakes its case. Here-in low studentteacher ratios, in college plans, tutorials, etc.-it has spent its money and ingenuity, and it is here that its failure has been spectacular. Why? In my opinion, the colleges have failed as teaching institutions because they have been subverted ates go on to graduate or professional schools, and, on the other, of complaining that they are being turned into prep schools for graduate study. Gentility and snobbery have played a large part in this subversion, as well as the hunger for academic respectability which is now firmly linked to the business of research . Instead of cleaving to the Socratic pretensions and traditions, the colleges have tended instead to become petty universities, differing from the universities only in a slightly higher regard for the teacher and a corresponding tolerance of the student. If the wealthier colleges have managed to recruit able faculty, the poor colleges have fared badly, recruiting second-and third-rate Ph.D.'s, who for their part regard the college as an academic boondocks and lust for the day when they can return to the urban Edens of research. In the meantime they teach the only thing they knowtechnical expertise-and thereby both corrupt their students and refuse their Socratic opportunities. The colleges, in short, have yoked themselves to Pharaoh's chariot and, if they regret their loss of function, they have only themselves to blame. A handful of small colleges have dared to break the bond of snobbery and respectability that binds the college to the university, and they have done so simply by daring to profess the values they assert and finding teachers who profess them too. I am, of course, in violent disagreement with those who believe that "the selective liberal arts colleges of the future ... must become first-rate preparatory colleges for graduate education." If we believe that the liberal traditions of the colleges are viable and that the college may have a higher function than feeding professional schools, then we must set about saving it. If I am right, the trouble with the colleges is that they recruit their faculties from uncongenial sources; the well is poisoned. By imitating the universities, the colleges have everything to lose and nothing to gain; neither their funds nor their human resources are adequate to the competition. My solution is dramatically simple. Let the colleges go into p age s i x L E TTERS fro m Sa nt a F e Sp r i n g 1 9 9 3 �business on their own, against the graduate universities; let them form their own league as it were and train the kind of man they cannot expect to recruit from the universities. I am aware that such federations are in the air, and perhaps already exist; but I am emphatically not suggesting federation on the principle of beating the graduate schools at their own game. It should be a different game altogether, designed to produce men who do not think it beneath their dignity to educate others; men in whom the general civilized intelligence survives; humanists with a concern for men; scholars convinced that the world needs humane knowledge as never before. Ideally, I think, it would seek to involve its students in the real world, and it would surely seek real association with the vocations and professions. But its primary purpose would be to produce truly educated graduates as well as teachers to whom it could reasonably entrust the crucial task of providing models for those who wanted to become civilized men instead of scholars. I also believe that a formidable but generous enterprise helps to summon large behavior into being, and that the immense task of building institutions worthy of his love and learning might do much to create the kind of man who is missing. Enterprises which require humanity are the first prerequisite for a greater humanity. Men must use themselves significantly in order to grow. That is the law of all education, all growth. Why not apply it to education? We need new or renewed institutions; in the act of renewing them, we may renew ourselves. Such institutions would surely not lack for students. Those who Fa/11993 desire to study further but have no wish to be processed as professors are, I am convinced, far more numerous than is commonly suspected. The country is rich; leisure is available; educational expectations are rising. Far too many graduates of our colleges and universities feel, moreover, that they never got an education, and it is these who go on to graduate school in the hope of getting what they failed to get as undergraduates. It is graduate education they want, not graduate training. This is why dissatisfaction with the graduate schools is so keen. There is simply no option available on the graduate level; everything is geared to professional training. And among those disenchanted with graduate school are precisely those from whom the colleges should in fact be recruiting their faculties-those students who are not averse to learning but who demand that it be given relevance and embodiment. It seems a cruel shame that such talent should go to waste or find no meaningful fulfillment at a time when it is so terribly needed. We are not so rich in the higher human resources that this source can be so tragically wasted. Are there enough men to staff more than three or four such experimental "graduate" centers in the liberal arts? Probably not. But what matters is that there should be at least a handful of colleges in this country which dare to resist the conformity imposed by the research cartel and to distinguish themselves by putting the teacher-and therefore the humanities-squarely at the center of the curriculum. Two or three such places would, I am convinced, reinvigorate, perhaps even revolutionize, American education simply by providing LETTERS from S an t a F e But what matters is that there should be at least a handful of colleges in this country which dare to resist the conformity imposed by the research cartel and to distinguish themselves by putting the teacherand therefore the humanities-squarely at the center of the curriculum. pa ge se ve n �convincing examples of the daring and diversity we need. The logical place for them to be established is either upon the existing base of the better liberal arts colleges, or as a new "higher college" created by a group of colleges acting in concert. Only by some such device, by striking at the source of the trouble, can the traditional role of the college be protected and expanded. It would be a staggering loss if the only institution of higher education still committed to liberal education should be subverted by the demand for professionals and technicians. The Universities Teaching is notoriously worse off in the universities than in the colleges. Not only is the university traditionally more committed to pure research, but it is particularly vulnerable to the pressures that have eroded the teacher's status. Vast numbers of students, huge classes, intense competition for Federal funds, and therefore for distinguished research professors, political and professional pressures, all these have operated to downgrade and even discredit teaching.. . . At present the heart of university power is the department. It is this departmental power that now so vehemently promotes research and is hostile or indifferent to teaching. It is at the departmental level that the evaluation of teaching is subverted, since chairmen apparently equate research and teaching; it is there that publish-or-perish policies are really promulgated; that the pressure for reduced teaching loads derives; from there that graduate deans are recruited; that the demand for early specialization arises, as well as the jealous specialism that fragments the curriculum into p a ge eight warring factions . Put a mild and gentle man of broad learning into a department chairmanship, and within two years he will either be murdered by his colleagues or become an aggressive and vindictive mafioso of the crassest specialism. The process can no more be resisted than the ravages of time. It is inexorable and destructive; and it is the remorseless tragedy of university politics. This is why it is so imperative that some rival to it, some countervailing, antidepartmental force be created. Research is dominant now because teaching has no effective representation , no normalized political place or power, within the structure of the university. The departments are theoretically com posed of teachers or teacherscholars, but actually they have been wholly captured by the research professoriat. The scholar has everything-the departments, the powerful committees , the learned societies, the Federal funds, the deanships, and the presidenciesand if he chooses to say that he finds teaching distasteful and unworthy of his abilities, who will say him nay? Who speaks for teaching here? Clearly nobody, except perhaps the students. problem of research and teaching not by reconciling them but by divorcing them altogether. That is my intention, and one which I am prepared to risk, since the only likely alternative is to make teaching the lackey of scholarship. I think we have reached the point at which slogans like "scholar-teacher" merely darken counsel; there may have been a time when that was a viable ideal, and doubtless some exceptionally gifted men still incarnate it. But by and large its vogue passes on to the professor the two functions which the university has inherited and which it cannot meaningfully reconcile. The realities of educational practice make it starkly apparent that no reconciliation can now occur except at the expense of teaching. And I am not prepared to incur that expense if I can humanly help it. This is why I urge you to consider freshly the wisdom of separating teaching and research, with the thought that significant teaching and fresh energy in academic institutions may eventually make scholarship human again, and that an invigorated scholarship may once again accept the burden of teaching as the source of its vigor and the test of its wisdom. * * * ** This is the present state of affairs; a vast educational enterprise built entirely upon a cast of learned men whose learning has no relevance to the young and even seems to alienate the young from both education and culture. It is a vision of madness accomplished. Logan Wilson, editor, Octagon Books, Excerpted from: The Academic Man, 1967. ** * * * One final point. I expect to be told that I am actually meeting the LETT E RS f r o m Sa n ta Fe Fa /1 1 9 93 �THE TYRANNICAL MACHINE by Lynne V. Cheney Former Chairman National Endowment for the Humanities For decades critics have been saying that institutions of higher education do not do enough to encourage good teaching. Classicist William Arrowsmith made this point in 1967, observing that "at present, the universities are as uncongenial to teaching as the Mojave Desert to a clutch of Druid priests." Almost a quarter century later, historian Page Smith asserts that faculties "are in full flight from teaching ... In many universities, faculty members make no bones about the fact that students are the enemy. It is students who threaten to take up precious time that might otherwise be devoted to research." This situation has not come about because faculty members necessarily prefer research . In a recent survey, 71 percent reported that their interests either leaned toward or lay primarily in teaching. But the road to success--or even to survival-in the academic world is through publishing ... . The most dramatic examples of how research is valued over teaching occur when faculty members who have won campus-wide awards for teaching suddenly find themselves without jobs. A 1988 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education even raised the possibility that teaching F a ll 1 9 93 r awards, by implying that a faculty member is not as serious about research as he or she should be, are "the kiss of death" as far as achieving tenure is concerned. Economist Thomas Sowell reports, "I personally know three different professors at three different institutions who have gotten the Teacher of the Year Award and were then told that their contracts would not be renewed. The emphasis on research is greatest at research universities where 64 percent of the faculty report spending five hours or less per week on formal classroom instruction and 86 percent report spending six or more hours per week on research. At liberal arts colleges, however, the emphasis on research is growing. Fifty liberal arts schools have banded together under the lead of Oberlin College and are considering calling themselves "research colleges." Schools such as Colorado College, Grinnell, and Wellesley have reduced the number of hours faculty teach so that they have more time to do research. A recent survey of twelve liberal arts colleges reported that faculty frequently distinguish between teaching and "what they often call, significantly, 'my own work' or research." According to one estimate, teaching responsibilities at noted research universities have, since 1920, decreased in many instances by one-third, and often by half to two-thirds. * * * * * The model that increasingly drives all of higher education-the tyrannical machine that reignswas first established in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century. Derived from German universities, the model emphasized the production of knowledge rather than its diffusion. Both Daniel Coit Gilman and G. Stanley Hall, influential spokesmen for the new LETTERS f rom S anta Fe p age nin e �university ideal, thought that the scholar's proper role lay in producing "bricks" for the rising temple of knowledge. William James was among the first to note that such a single-minded view threatened a system in which there were many paths to excellence. Teaching Less One of the most dramatic effects of emphasizing the production of new knowledge-that is, research that leads to publicationrather than the communication of knowledge to the next generationthat is teaching-has been a decline in how much faculty members teach . At four-year institutions, time spent by faculty in the classroom has decreased steadily. According to one estimate, teaching responsibilities at noted research universities have, since 1920, decreased in many instances by one-third, and often by half to two-thirds. As the president of York College of Pennsylvania, Robert Iosue notes, it is difficult to be precise about the degree to which teaching responsibilities have declined because official teaching loads are often different from actual ones, which may be reduced for such work as service on a faculty committee. "In one bizarre case," Iosue says, "a professor received fifteen hours of reduction from an official work load of twelve hours. He was paid a three-hour teaching overload yet did not step inside the classroom." The gradually shrinking academic year also affects time faculty members spend in the classroom. In the late 1960s, according to an executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers, most colleges had two seventeen-week semesters. Now, two fifteen-week semesters are more typical, with some schools in session as few as twenty-eight weeks-or half a year. Observing that students in Missouri institutions of higher education now spend a semester and a half less in college than students in the 1940s, Governor John Ashcroft has asked the schools in his state to lengthen the academic year. When faculty members teach less, there is a financial consequence. Because more people must be hired to teach , the costs of education escalate-and so does tuition . Between 1980-81 and 1989-90, average tuition charges rose an inflation-adjusted 50 percent at public universities, 66 percent at private universities, and 57 percent at other private four-year schools. Other factors, including increased administrative expenses, account for some of these increases; but with instructional budgets typically comprising 40 percent of educational and general expenditures, the decline in the amount of time faculty members spend in the classroom clearly plays a role. Between 1977 and 1987, while the number of full-time arts and sciences students decreased by 14 percent, the number of full-time arts and science faculty members increased by 16 percent, but it is hard to find evidence that instruction benefitted. Instead there are reports of students unable to get into classes or to take the courses they want. At the University of Texas at Austin, after the English department reduced the teaching load by one-third, students stood in long lines in Purloin Hall, waiting, as the student newspaper put it, "for an English class, any English class, to open." At Northwestern University, page t e n L E TT E RS fro m Sa n ta F e a student editorial complained about course offering in history, noting that 20 percent of the department was on leave to do research and that none of the four highly publicized, newly hired faculty members in the department was teaching. Even though the number of arts and sciences students has declined markedly and the number of faculty members has increased significantly, many institutions still find themselves short of teachers . They frequently fill in the gap with what has been called an "academic underclass"-part-time instructors. Part-timers, who in 1988 comprised 37 percent of faculty nationwide, are paid much less than full-time faculty. A survey of English departments showed the typical part-time faculty member earning $1,500 per course although there were examples of departments paying as little as $400 . Colleges and universities often cap the number of courses that a part-timer can teach so they will not have to pay fringe benefits. Thus many part-timers become "gypsy scholars," frantically commuting between teaching assignments at different institutions and frequently looking for other ways to supplement their salaries. Michael Shenefelt, a part-timer at New York University and Long Island University, reports that by supplementing his income as an office temporary, he is able to earn $20,000 a year . "A New York University elevator door operator begins at $20,000," Shenefelt observes. For Ph.D. granting institutions, graduate students are another source of cheap labor for the classroom, one used extensively at some universities. A 1989 walkout of Fa ll 1 993 �teaching assistants at the University of California at Berkeley is reported to have caused the cancellation of nearly 75 percent of classes. Like part-time instructors, graduate students are often unsupervised; and while some manage to be excellent teachers without any orientation or opportunity to discuss their work with experienced faculty members, few find themselves rewarded for a job well done. In fact what graduate students learn, all too often, is that teaching is not worth doing well. Says Frank Manley of Emory University, "I left [Johns Hopkins] with the idea that my main job was to do research, write books, and neglect undergraduates, because otherwise they would take all my time ... . My career has been in part an unlearning of what I learned in graduate school." Jaime O'Neill of Butte College in Oroville, California, says that it took him "five years of adjustment to get over the snobbery of graduate school." Across the country are thousands of faculty members whose professional lives run counter to the prevailing culture of academia. At a liberal arts college in the Midwest where a new emphasis on publication has led to a cutback in course offerings, a literature professor teaches as many courses as he possibly can to try to make up the shortfall. " I am permitted to teach on a unlimited basis," he says, "and I do. If I did not do this, many students would not be able to take a literature course." All too often, however, a decision to emphasize teaching exacts a price. At the University of Maryland, associate professor Maynard Mack, Jr., notes that his own focus on teaching "is not a fast track to that promotion. I Fa/11993 r should minimize my campus responsibilities and produce a second book." Faculty Interests and Student Needs The increased emphasis on research has resulted in a surge of publications. The number of books and articles published annually on Shakespeare grew by 80 percent between 1968 and 1988; the number on Virginia Woolf by 800 percent. With so much being written, individual researchers find themselves having to take up narrower and narrower topics in order to find a niche. It is not surprising that faculty would want to teach what interests them professionally, but the extent to which specialization and new theoretical approaches have affected curricula may well startle anyone who has not followed the collegiate course of study over the last few decades. A student can fulfill core requirements at Harvard by studying tuberculosis from 1842-1952, and distributive requirements at Dartmouth with "Sexuality and Writing," which analyzes "the use of sexuality and its ramifications as symbols for the process of literary creativity, with particular reference to ... potency and creative fertility; marriage or adultery and literary sterility; deviation and/ or solitude and autobiography; prostitution and history; chastity and literary self-referentiality." At the University of Minnesota, faculty in the humanities department recently proposed doing away with the ten courses the department offers in Western civilization and substituting three new courses: "Discourse and Society," "Text and Context," and "Knowledge, LE TT ERS f r o m Santa Fe The number of books and articles published annually on Shakespeare grew by 80 percent between 1968 and 1988; the number on Virginia Woolf by 800 percent. With so much being written, individual researchers find themselves having to take up narrower and narrower topics in order to find a niche. pa g e e l eve n �r Persuasion, and Power." In these introductory courses, students will analyze "ways that certain bodies of discourse come to cohere to exercise persuasive power, and to be regarded as authoritative, while others are marginalized, ignored, or to give up plans to abandon the Western civilization courses immediately. For the time being, the older curriculum will continue to be offered along with the newer ones. There is concern, however, about how long the Western civi- denigrated." More advanced courses are also being planned including "Music as Discourse," for which the syllabus includes music video, a heavy metal concert, and songs sung at a workers' strike. Resistance from faculty in other departments as well as from students has led the humanities department lization courses will last since the overwhelming majority of faculty members in the humanities department has little interest in teaching them. A disgruntled student at Minnesota observes, "This is all because members of a department want to teach what they want to page twelve LETTERS fro m Sa nt a Fe teach"-which is not necessarily what undergraduates need to learn. A recent nationwide survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the National Endowment for the Humanities showed that many students manage to approach college graduation with alarming gaps in knowledge. About 25 percent of the nation's college seniors were unable to date Columbus's journey within the correct half-century. More than 30 percent could not identify the Reformation. A majority could not link major works by Plato, Dante, Shakespeare, and Milton with their authors. "We are graduating a generation that knows less and less," says Vassar sociology professor James Farganis. In the absence of required, broad-based courses in which undergraduates study significant events and books, Farganis notes, "students are picking and choosing, making their own curriculum in a haphazard fashion." Some students do not study American or English literature at all: It is possible to graduate from 45 percent of the nation's colleges and universities without doing so. Similarly, some undergraduates do not study history: It is possible to graduate from 38 percent of the nation's colleges and universities without doing so. At 41 percent of colleges and universities, it is possible to graduate without studying mathematics; at 33 percent, without studying natural and physical sciences . Between 1968 and 1988, while the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the United States grew by 56 percent, the number of bachelor's degrees awarded in the humanities fell by 39 percent. There have also been significant declines in mathematics and physical science r \ Fa/1199 3 ;~ · �majors during this period: down 33 percent and 9 percent respectively. For the humanities (and for mathematics) the situation has improved in recent years, but the loss remains significant. Twenty years ago, one out of six graduates majored in the humanities. Today the figure is one out of sixteen. No doubt there are many explanations, but surely one is that many students come to college poorly prepared in the humanitiesand in mathematics and physical sciences as well-and once in college, they do not take introductory courses that fully introduce them to the challenges and pleasures of these disciplines . How could an undergraduate who has never taken a meaningful course in history or physics choose to major in one of these fields? Those who do major in the humanities often find that their courses are not conceived as comprehensive treatments of important subjects but as preparation for graduate school. Even though most majors in subjects like English do not go on to work on Ph.D.'s, they may well spend time as undergraduates becoming familiar with critical theory-perhaps more time than they spend reading literature. "I strongly suspect," " writes Professor Robert Alter of the University of California at Berkeley, "that many young people now earning undergraduate degrees in English or French at our most prestigious institutions have read two or three pages of Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and Kristeva for every page of George Eliot or Stendhal." In graduate school, students prepare to publish and survive by narrowing their focus as much as possible-and by reading theory. Elizabeth Fentress, who went to F a ll 19 93 r graduate school because she wanted to concentrate in original works of literature, has ~ritten about her discovery that there was no way to earn an advanced degree without diving into a "tidal wave of theory." Rather than be diverted from her goal, she ended her graduate studies. "I deemed it best to leave . .. ," she writes, " and to learn what I wanted to learn on my own." Research interests affect teaching and learning at all levels of higher education, and they have an impact on schools as well. Among today's college students are tomorrow's teachers; and if their curricula have been haphazard, they may well know less than they should about the subjects they will teach. If they have been taught in an indifferent fashion, they will be less likely to know how to teach well themselves. "The undergraduate education that intending teachers receive is full of the same bad teaching that litters American high schools," a group of education school deans observes. "If teachers are to know a subject so that they can teach it well, they need to be taught it well." Excerpted from : Tvrannical Machines: A Report on Educational Practices Gone Wrong and Our Best Hopes for Setting Them Right. 1990. "I strongly suspect," writes Professor Robert Alter of the University of California at Berkeley, "that many young people now earning undergraduate degrees in English or French at our most prestigious institutions have read two or three pages of Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, and Kristeva for every page of George Eliot or Stendhal." LETT E RS from Santa Fe pa ge th i rt een �THE CHARGE THAT RESEARCH IS NARROW AND OPAQUE IS DECADES OUT OF DATE Most academics still have a special field, by Gerald Graff and academic fields This article by Gerald Graff is an communicate in attempted response to the charges specialized vocabularies piece. Sadly, it probably speaks the that few lay people professoriate. And do notice how ten- made by Lynne Cheney in the previous mind of most of the higher-education can penetrate. But the things that are said in these vocabularies increasingly strive for large general import, if only because it is difficult otherwise to get a job, a promotion, or a grant. pa g e f o urt ee n r dentious and ideological the "new" research is compared to the old. -J.A. One of the least examined assumptions in the debates that have raged lately over the compatibility of research and teaching is that academic research is narrowly specialized. Those who criticize the research enterprise and its reward structure for drawing professors away from teaching tend to accept the late Allan Bloom's observation in The Closing of the American Mind that "most professors are specialists, concerned only with their own fields." Even those who defend research against such criticisms often accept the idea that most research is so highly specialized that it conflicts with the needs of undergraduate general education. Neither the detractors nor the defenders of research specialization, however, seem to have been paying much attention to what has actually been happening to academic LETTERS f r o m S ant a F e research over the past generation. Indeed, the whole research-versusteaching debate has been marked by a curious reluctance to examine what academics now actually do under the name of research, in contrast with what they used to do. We seem so used to the image of research as over specialized and opaque that we don't feel any need to actually look at the stuff. The over specialized image was certainly an accurate one in the past. In its first half-century, the modern university was dominated by an ethos of Germanic positivistic science that viewed any broad generalization as a symptom of dilettantism; it held that the narrower a research topic was, the sounder the scholarship. Ideal research subjects were ones like "The Syntax of at and ana in Gothic, Old Saxon, and Old High German," which was the title of a Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Chicago in 1916. But that was quite a while ago. With the expansion of higher education after World War II, what counted as "research" became more flexible and capacious. The brute accumulation of facts started to be valued less than interpretations that gave significance to the facts. Not only interpretation, but creative work in the arts began to count toward tenure and promotion. Then in the 1960s a barrage of attacks on narrow specialization began to reshape the way younger scholars defined their work. The result is that today, at least in humanistic and cultural fields, the more specialized kinds of research are actually penalized rather than rewarded. Anyone writing a dissertation in 1992 on "The Syntax of at and ana" would be unlikely to get a teaching job in Fall J 9 93 �today's competitive market. Far more likely to catch the eye of a hiring committee would be broad topics like "Fascism, Modernism, and the Historical Avant Garde: Theories and Praxis," or "Writing Like a Man: Gender and Readers in Adam Bede and The House of Mirth," to mention two titles from the 1988 edition of Dissertation Abstracts. We need only look at the way academic books have come to be promoted to see how much things have changed. Consider the following comments from recent universitypress advertisements. "Twenty-eight of the nation's leading critics and scholars offer a comprehensive exploration of American society and culture." "[The authors] journey into the minds of men and bring to light an imaginative history of women and of the relations between the sexes." "At once fascinating and provocative, [the book] looks at the history of the automobile for evidence on the nature of dreams and desires embedded in modern culture." Even if such comments often contain more hype than sober truth, the mere fact that academic books have come to be promoted in this way is proof of a significant shift in priorities, from over specialization to "provocative" and "comprehensive" generality. Indeed, if today's academy is over-anything, it is overgeneralized rather than over specialized, reserving its greatest rewards for scholars who make large, sweeping theoretical and interdisciplinary claims. As a result, excessive pressure falls on younger scholars to produce the Big Synthesis before they may be ready to do so, while worthy but modestly defined topics go unappreciated. The beneficial consequence, however, Fa/11993 is that significance is valued over pedantry. Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by words like "specialized" and "narrow". As Catherine R. Stimpson has observed, "Specialization is a feature of every complex organization, be it social or natural, a school system, garden, book, or mammalian body." Most academics still have a special field, and academic fields communicate in specialized vocabularies that few lay people can penetrate. But the things that are said in these vocabularies increasingly strive for large general import, if only because it is difficult otherwise to get a job, a promotion, or a grant. As Ms. Stimpson also has pointed out, "specialization" has lately become an ideological buzz word, part of the current attack on new forms of scholarship that allegedly pander to "special interest groups." Thus some would object that a topic like "Writing Like a Man: Gender and Readers ... " is no less specialized than "The Syntax of at and ana in Gothic ... ," and it is true that both dissertations might seem equally obscure to many students and lay people. Nevertheless, there is clearly a big difference, as the critics themselves betray when they object to topics like "Writing Like a Man" for being too political. The objection implies that, far from being narrowly specialized, such topics are all too aggressively general in ways the critics disapprove. Consider "Tyrannical Machines," a 1990 report from the National Endowment for the Humanities by its chairman, Lynne V. Cheney. Mrs. Cheney restates the old chestnut that humanities research is over specialized and that general educaLETTERS from Santa Fe tion suffers as a result, with courses in "increasingly narrow topics" taking the place of broadly general ones. For example, Mrs . Cheney cites one university that has replaced traditional courses in Western civilization with new courses in "Discourse and Society," "Text and Context," and "Knowledge and Power." But what is "narrow" about courses in "discourse and society," "text and context," and "knowledge and power"? Since these courses probably encompass cultures outside the West, they are in one sense less narrow than the ones they have replaced. Obviously, it is something else about the new courses that bothers Mrs. Cheney, not a difference in degree of specialization but a difference in ideology. The question of ideology needs to be debated, but tying it to specialization only confuses the issue. If I am right that the assumptions about research specialization that have dominated recent debates are a generalization out of date, then the prospects for reconciling research and teaching (and research and general education) may be better than we have been led to think. If much of today's research, as I have argued, does tackle questions and problems with wide significance, why can't that research be used effectively in the classroom? At my first job interview in 1962, I was asked the following question: If assigned to teach a freshman course, how would I go about adapting the topic of my doctoral dissertation to the needs of my students? This kind of question, which is still commonly asked, clearly assumes that acaclemic research is adaptable to the "general" interests of undergraduates. page fifteen �The question assumes not only that research has pedagogical relevance, but that professors should teach their research to undergraduates. In the past, of course, such a view often might have been just a cynical rationalization for inflicting the most boring and vacuous professorial specialties o n students. Today, however, I think it signals a new desire that research possess a potential interest for non-specialists, and a new appreciation of teachers who can translate whatever may necessarily b e esoteric and technical in their r esearch into term s t h a t can b e understood by students. It seems that in practice we have been evolving a better, more realistic solution to the researchversu s-teaching problem tha n the nostrums u su ally p rop osed . This solution is neither to subordinate research to general education (as if they were opposed), nor to separate research from undergraduate teaching by quarantining it in non-teaching research faculties. It is rather to ma ke our research more available to undergraduates, even thinking of undergraduates as co-researchers. Does this mean, then, that there is no substance wha tsoever in the widespread perception that academic research interferes with teaching or inordinately narrows its scope? No, but I think that m any critics have not diagnosed the real p roblem. Today the problem often is not that aca d emic resea rch lack s gen era l import, but that the academy does a poor job of clarifying this import for students a nd la y people . If most acade mic publica tion st ill seem s o pa q u e t o gen era l r ea d e r s, the ch ances are this is no t because its con cerns a re i r relevant t o s u ch readers but because that relevance pase s ix f ee 11 is not spelled out for them. Much of what is currently mistaken by the public for specializa tion is really just bad writing, or at least writing that fails to try to make its point accessible to outsiders. Instead of persisting, then, in the traditional, futile attempt to shift the emphasis from research to teaching and general educa tion, universities should try to do a better job of clarifying the educational significance of the research that their faculty members conduct. The public needs to be convinced that, despite L E T T E R S f rom Sa nt a Fe what they have been hearing from critics, time devoted to research is not necessarily time stolen from teaching. Gerald Graff is professor of English and education at the University of Chicago . This piece appeared in the "Point of View" column of The Chronicle of Higher Education. October 21, 1992. Fa ll 1 993 �SENSE AND NONSENSE IN THE ACADEMY who tried to stop the theft will still be disciplined or if Penn's security forces still have to go to diversity-sensitivity training. A note from John Agresto This is a new column that will, in this and future issues, reprint the foibles, These articles appeared in The Wall Street Journal's. Review and Outlook Section, July 26, 1993. failings, shortcomings and downright lunacy in the ever-crazy world of higher Penn The Report education. Please, reader, if you have stories to tell, tell us. For my part, I think I'll look into college catalogues for the next issue. Here, just so we all have it on record, is what happened at the University of Pennsylvania, not in the "Water Buffalo" episode, but in the aftermath of the theft of The Dailv Pennsv/vanian. The only decent part of this whole shabby story is that the interim provost and the interim president at Penn both seem reasonably mortified not only by the publicity surrounding the episode, but by the episode itself. I wrote the provost asking for some explanation of the events recounted below and, though he didn't address these issues directly, he did send a statement that both he and the interim president signed. In part it reads: "This action {the theft of the papers] violated long held principles of freedom of the press and freedom of speech on the University of Pennsylvania campus. We will respond vigorously to any future violations of those principles.... The confiscation of any publication on a campus is wrong and will not be tolerated. Individuals who engage in such actions will be subject to the full range of judicial sanctions." Nonetheless, the charges against those who confiscated the papers have been dismissed. And there is no word if the courageous museum administrator Fall 1 993 r Not long ago, during the memorable Water Buffalo trials at the University of Pennsylvania, we also reported on the concurrent suspension of Donald Fitzgerald, director of security for Penn's University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Mr. Fitzgerald, it appeared, had run afoul of the Penn administration-which has some markedly peculiar notions about the duties of security officersbecause he tried to apprehend two women students running out of the museum carrying three large plastic bags. It turned out that the women were not, as Mr. Fitzgerald worried, running off with museum pieces. Part of a group of black activist students aggrieved by the views aired in the student paper, the women had confiscated all the copies of The Daily Pennsylvanian at the museum, as their friends were doing elsewhere around campus. On April 15, virtually the entire press run of the paper was appropriated and carted off. The administration, headed at the time by President Sheldon Hackney (who recently won confirmation as head of the National Endowment of the Humanities), determined at once that Mr . Fitzgerald should be suspended from his security duties. He would remain on suspension many weeks, while a "blue ribbon panel" LETTERS fro m Santa Fe appointed by the Penn administration deliberated over the events of April 15. Those deliberations have at last come to an end. With that end has also come a report on the panel's findings-one so remarkable for the depths of its fastidiously argued nonsense that we thought it only fitting to reprint portions nearby. The document is a pure specimen of political cravenness. But such cravenness is hardly limited to the University of Pennsylvania. The unhappy fact of university life today is that there are many Penns and many administrators who thought they were purchasing peace by accommodating political zealots. The degree of that effort to accommodate is reflected in the central pronouncement of the Penn panel's report-namely the judgment that the theft of the newspapers was a "form of protest" and therefore not criminal behavior. Apparently, then, any assault-including, presumably, the removal and destruction of library books some group considers offensive-might be held immune from prosecution if it's a "protest." The report goes on to say that rather than taking action, the police should have contacted entities at Penn called "Open Expression Monitors" to study the students actions. Think we're making that up? Read the following excerpt. The panel concludes that the Museum security director's pursuit of the women with the shopping bags was "inappropriate" once those students had left the property of the Museum and was not in "accordance with ... his job functions. " Presumably, then, any thief who wishes to appropriate some page seven t een �invaluable museum piece can now consider himself immune from pursuit, if he can get past the door and grounds. The report recommends that for his inappropriate behavior, security director Fitzgerald's superiors should review his role for possible disciplinary action. Mr. Fitzgeraldw ho has been returned to active duty-received a letter of reprimand and will, along with other security personnel, have to attend sensitivity training classes. There have been other instances in which activists have undertaken to silence opposition views by removing the offending publications. At Penn State (not the same as the U. of Pennsylvania) two former students-journalism majors, no less-made off with four thousand copies of an alternative, conservative s tudent publication called Th e Lionhearted. Here the legal outcome was different. To their credit, the police charged the perpetrators with theft, receipt of stolen property, and criminal conspiracy. Still, it's a measure of how far the assault on free expression has gone on campuses that the Penn State undergraduate paper, The Daily Collegian, actually editorialized in favor of the notion that the re mova l and burning of Th e Lionhearted was a legitimate act of free expression. Presumably these student "journalists" will soon be making their way into the American press corps. George Orwell had the word for this sort of reasoning-and for the entire tenor of the Penn panel's report. That word is "doublethink"-a description unfortunately as relevant today as it was in the 1930s. During his confirmation hearings, Mr. Hackney assured the Senators that his administration took the most serious possible view of the theft of The Daily Pennsylvanian papers, and that the students who took them would be disciplined. Just how seriously the university in fact took this attack on the right of free expression will be clear to anyone who wants to take a look at the excerpts of this stunning Orwellian document from the minds running America's campuses. 1. Biomedical Library/Johnson Pavilion (6:52 a.m.): Incident involving two students and two officers responding to a call from a School of Medicine security guard. The panel found that one officer behaved in a discourteous manner toward the students by ordering them to leave before determining who they were or giving them an opportunity to explain their presence. pag e eig h t ee n LETTERS f r o m San ta Fe Doublethink at the University of Pennsylvania Following are excerpts from the report of a panel of University of Pennsylvania administrators appointed to study the theft of one entire press run of the student newspaper. The The panel found that his actions violated Section 8.4.02 of the "UPPD (University of Pennsylvania Police Department) Policies and Procedures Manual" and should be reviewed by his supervisor for possible disciplinary action. The panel found that the Medical School security guard behaved appropriately by contacting the UPPD. The panel recommended that all security personnel receive training on working and interacting with people from diverse backgrounds. This training should include information about the diversity of the Penn community and the expectation that all members of the community should be treated with civility and respect regardless of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, national or ethic [sic] origin, age, disability, or status as a disabled or Vietnam era veteran. papers were seized all over campus by black activist students opposed to The Oailv Pennsvlvanian's editorial content. The report, which criticizes security guards, absolves the students of any wrong-doing- except failure to show 1.0. cards. The panel analyzed what supposedly transpired at each of the campus sites involved. Individual Incidents on April 15, 1993. 2. Blackley Hall/Johnson pavilion (7:48 a.m.): Incident involving two students, one Medical School security officer, one Medical School Supervisor of Security, one security office . .. and four police officers responding to a call to UPPD that "A black male at Blackley Hall tried to take all the DP's [Da ily Pennsylvanians]." The panel found that one officer behaved in an unprofessional manner in violation of Section 8.4.02 of the UPPD Policies and Procedures Manual" by cursing at the student and u sed excessive force .. .by striking the student with his baton. The panel also found that the officer failed to conduct a proper and thorough inves tiga tion because h e neglected to interview the security personnel w ho were in pursuit." Fa /1 199 3 �3. David Rittenhouse Laboratories (8:20 a.m.): Incident involving two students, four officers, and the UPPD dispatcher. When two officers stopped the students carrying a large trash bag outside of DRL, they were informed by the students that this was a protest action. The panel found that the responding officer ... violated Section 5.22.0 of the "UPPD Policies and Procedures Manual" by not requesting that a supervisor be dispatched to the scene in response to a demonstration. The panel found that the dispatcher violated UPPD Divisional Directive 92.08 by making a command decision without consulting a supervisor. 4. University Museum/Sports Medicine (8:16 a.m.): Incident involving two students, a Museum security guard, a Museum administrator and two officers. The Museum administrator pursued the students, who took the DP's from Kress Gallery, and caught up with them in Weightman Hall, where he made a "citizen's arrest" and detained the students. The panel found that the Museum administrator's actions in pursuit of the students were inappropriate after they left the property of the University Museum and not in accordance with the authority and responsibility of his job functions. His actions should be reviewed by his supervisor for possible disciplinary action. The panel found that the students should have shown their Penn cards. In summary, the panel concluded that once the incident occurred at DRL [David Rittenhouse Laboratories], the UPPD should have recognized that the removal of the DP's from at least three different locations was a form of student protest and not an indicator of criminal behavior. According to the University's "Emergency Procedures Protocols" ... the UPPD should have contacted the Office of the Vice Provost for University Life as soon as it recognized that the students were involved in a form of protest. Once the VPUL was notified of the protest, Open Expression Monitors would have been dispatched to observe and monitor the students' actions, in compliance with the existing Open Expression Guidelines. Since this act was a form of protest and not a criminal offense, it would have been more appropriate for Open Expression Monitors, not police officers, to mediate and attempt to resolve any further conflicts that resulted from the removal of the DP's. The Open Expression Monitors could have informed the students about the Open Expression Guidelines, notified them if their actions violated the Guidelines, and identified students who violated the Guidelines. ,.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, ' GIFTS AND THE NEW TAX LAW As the end of the year approaches, the following, taken from an item in the New York Times, might be of interest. As with any tax-related matter, check with your tax adviser if there are any questions about making a gift. The tax bill introduces, restores and expands several kinds of tax breaks, and among the greatest of these is charity. Philanthropic gifts have been tax deductible all along. But it is even more advantageous for the wealthy to give now that the after-tax cost of gifts is just 60 cents on the dollar for those in the highest marginal tax bracket. There has been another important change in the law, however, that makes it easier than in recent years to make gifts of property that has increased in value over the years. These gifts can be deducted at present market value even though the taxpayer never paid that much for them, and the gifts do not incur any capital gains tax. Under the new law, this kind of transaction can no longer trigger the punishing alternative minimum tax. And the provisions have been expanded to include not only property like paintings, but so-called intangibles, such as stocks or even royalty rights .... The Internal Revenue Service has also been ordered to develop a method for taxpayers to agree in advance of making a charitable donation with the LR. S. on the value of a painting or other property, so there will be no disputes. F a ll 1993 r To our readers, If you know someone who might be interested in receiving information regarding the programs offered at St. John's College, please fill out this form and return it to St. John's College, 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599. Name of interested person (s) Address Possible area(s) of interest - 0 Undergraduate 0 Graduate D Eastern Classics 0 Summer Classics ' ' ' ·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -:~ ~-~ ~-~-~ ~:~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -j LETTERS from Santa Fe page ninteen �PROFILE St. John's College: An independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college. Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western civilization. The program also includes four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty ratio is 8:1. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class is made up of 55% men and 45% women, from 37 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's d egree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact the Graduate Institute in Santa Fe 505/984-6082 or in Annapolis 410/626-2541. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED ... U. S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 20 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Fall 1993 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Fall 1993 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Rudolph, Frederick Arrowsmith, William, 1924-1992 Cheney, Lynne V. Graff, Gerald Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1993_Fall Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/a4ef9a617060453bb9d5f5ce909e457d.pdf b1169795dd233efc78b6d96fb529003e PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College, Santa Fe. New Mexico Winter 1992 POLITICAL CORRECTNESS by John Agresto President, St. John's College Santa Fe, New Mexico INSIDE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND BEYOND page3 THE POLITICAL SEDUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY page 7 ON DEPOLITICIZING THE UNIVERSITY page 9 UNIVERSITIES MUST DEFEND FREE SPEECH page 11 SAY THE RIGHT THING ... OR ELSE page 14 "Learning is Good" is not only the motto of the college John Belushi attended in Animal House, it is also the simple and universal belief of virtually every American. If there is anything in which we have confidence and from which we all expect great things, it's education. Nonetheless, every now and then there comes along something so disturbing, so stupid, that almost everyone is led to ask if higher education has not simply lost its marbles. Consider the view that education is not instructive, or informative, or liberating, but "political." Consider the notion that higher education really entails not free inquiry but the repression of some ideas and the imposition of others. Consider the position that says that certain words of ordinary speech -- take "freshmen," for instance -- are insensitive, offensive, or otherwise incorrect and should be stifled. The last example is both trivial and telling at the same time. One of my daughters is now applying to college and a number of the questionnaires ask if she will be entering as a transfer student or as a "frosh." (I guess even colleges know that "freshpersons" would be unspeakably barbaric-- or is there a hint of a forbidden gender preference even in there?) When Political Correctness -- PC -- means that even ordinary, useful words are now to be banned, think of how incorrect ideas now fare on college campuses. So, this issue of Letters is about the underpinnings and manifestations of PC at college today. If "all education is political," if what students do when they go to college is become exposed to the "advanced" political views of an academic class of tenured radicals intent on making converts rather than on enlightenment, then education is in deep trouble. If professors now aim (in my friend Edwin Delattre's phrase) not to liberate students' minds but to possess them, then liberal education has rotted from the inside out, and we all have reason to be furious. Some of the articles and essays I've included in this issue of Letters review the incidents, the "highlights," if you will, of PC madness. In my opinion, the situation is both better and worse than they portray. Better because political correctness is not in any way a universal phenomenon in higher education. The instances of imposed speech codes, of students being sent for sensitivity re-education, of professors being shut up or disinvited from speaking their incorrect views are extensive, but finite. Anyone can name scores of good colleges where nothing like this occurs. Federal courts have stood by the principle of free in<Iuiry even when universities have buckled. And even at the worst universities there are still students and teachers who remain unintimidated. But in some ways the situation is worse, because political correctness is not a matter of adding up incidents, but a change in the nature and meaning of what education is. It �IF "ALL EDUCATION IS POLITICAL," IF WHAT STUDENTS DO WHEN THEY GO TO COLLEGE IS BECOME EXPOSED TO THE "ADVANCED" POLITICAL VIEWS OF AN ACADEMIC CLASS OF TENURED RADICALS INTENT ON MAKING CONVERTS RATHER THAN ON ENLIGHTENMENT, THEN EDUCATION IS IN DEEP TROUBLE. pa f: e t wo hasn't yet been accepted by the public, but it is now, in large measure, the intellectual norm in higher education that the very meaning of education is not what we thought it to be even as recently as ten years ago. For example, we had no trouble ten years ago talking about Great Books. Nevertheless, I've watched articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education go from speaking about Great Books, to "great" books, to "the so-called 'great books."' We had no trouble ten years ago believing that all of education should introduce students to the principles, the highlights, the works and discoveries of this their civilization. Now that's viewed as political and ethnocentric. And because it's viewed as "political," we 're told thatthere 's no way we can object to the use of the classroom as a propaganda pulpit since, after all, education has always been "political." Finally, education seems to have dismissed as fiction the notion that people can go from opinion to knowledge and, concomitantly, thattrue knowledge is universal. Everywhere we see repeatedly trotted out the three main food groups of the academic mind: race, gender and class. So those categories we once thought to be accidental are now believed by many to be simply determinative. If this were true, it would mean that liberal education isn't possible. The good news is that the views of the politically correct propagandists rest on false, perhaps even mindless, presuppositions. If (and it's a major if ) these propositions can be rebutted freely on campus, things will get better. It is the attempt notto have them debated freely by the proponents of political correctness that leads them to call their opponents everything from right-wing to racist, sexist, and homophobic. Interestingly enough, it is the humanities part of higher education (where political correctness has far more of a following than in science or engineering) that has been losing so many students. Predict- LETT E RS frn m Santa Fe ably, the response of the PC crowd is, no doubt for the first time in the academic lives of the vast majority of them, to make their courses required. So, after ridiculing the "canon" of old texts they institute a new canon -- a canon of courses on allowed opinion. How can we know if PC thinking is prevalent on a college or university campus. Well, you can observe a Jot just by looking, as Yogi Berra probably said. Look at college catalogues. Before you look for speech codes, look at what's required curricularly. If, rather than a year of foreign language, they require a course in Understanding Diversity, you've got a place where PC probably lives and prospers. If, rather than courses in the history of science or in philosophy they demand you take a course that falls under a "recognition and affirmation of difference," you've found another one. If, rather than a course in mathematics, they require some time spent with one of the sub-fields of the growing area of oppression studies, you've hit a PC jackpot. What can be done? Plenty. If the prestigious liberal arts college your son or daughter was thinking about attending gives evidence that awareness, correctness, and sensitivity are how they interpret their missions, encourage a look elsewhere. If the English Department seems to think that all great literature is the product of the author's time and place, or power relationships, or the result of hidden but now exposable prejudices and biases, suggest courses in mathematics or geology. Ifthe college thinks there's something wrong with teaching about the principles and works of this civilization-- that the study of Western Civilization has to be redirected or diluted--then suggest a major in medicine or business. And if someone you know is interested in a place where civility is expected but where there is no such thing as a view that cannot be examined or an idea that cannot be argued, ask me for one of our catalogues. • Wint e r 1992 �POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AND BEYOND Taken From Remarks by Lynne V. Cheney Chairman, National Endowment for the Humanities Through the ages, history, literature, and philosophy have been sources of immense satisfaction. But the humanities, particularly in Western civilization, have also been contentious; and that has certainly been the case in recent years. Today I want to talk about some of the reasons for this contentiousness, focusing particularly on "political correctness," or "p.c.," as it's sometimes called. Political correctness typically involves faculty members trying to impose their views on others, and the results can be funny--particularly when the forces of political correctness try to identify ever new forms of offense. At a recent conference at Yale, for example, a distinguished professor of literature suggested that limiting the humanities to the study of humankind was a form of "speciesism." Speciesists, I have learned, are people who refer to their dogs and cats as "pets"--a term much too condescending to be politically correct. Or the speciesist is the person who talks about "wild" animals, when the proper description is "free roaming." Smith College did its part to add to the English language when it recently warned the incoming class to beware not only of classism and ethnocentrism, but also of "lookism," a form of oppression that involves putting too much stock in personal appearance. I thought I'd begin by telling a story. It begins in the spring of 1990 when the English Department at the University of Texas at Austin decided to revise its freshman composition program. Henceforth English 306, the required composition course taken by some 3000 freshmen, would focus on race and gender; and all classes would use the same text, an anthology called Racism and Sexism. This book--the central required text for every section of freshman English--begins by defining racism as something only white people can be guilty of, and it tells students that sexism is unique to men. It goes on to portray the United States as a society so profoundly racist and sexist as to make a mockery of all our notions of liberty and justice. There are no comparisons with other cultures offered, no context to show how American ideals and practices actually stand up against those of the rest of the world--or the rest of history. The overwhelming impression that this textbook leaves is that every injustice of race or gender that human beings ever visited upon one another happened first and worst in this Wint e r I 99 2 L E TT E RS from San t a F e THE NEW MC CARTHYISM -LIKE THE OLD -- OFTEN WORKS ITS WAY BY NAME-CALLING. pa ge th ree �IT WAS ONCE THOUGHT THAT TEACHERS WHO USED THE CLASSROOM TO ADVANCE A POLITICAL AGENDA WERE BETRAYING THEIR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. BUT ON MANY CAMPUSES NOW FACULTY MEMBERS HA VE TAKEN THE POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THEIR STUDENTS AS A MISSION. country. And the only way we can redeem ourselves, the textbook tells us, is to change fundamentally the way we produce and distribute wealth. Abandon capitalism, in other words. Now, one might well think that the decision to focus English 306 on Racism and Sexism would cause some debate. For one thing, English 306 is a course intended to teach students how to write. Will they be better writers when they have stopped referring to poor people and instead speak of the "economically exploited," as one essay in the book instructs them to do? Some people in the English Department did object to the plans to revise course 306, but they had little effect, until finally, Alan Gribben, a noted scholar of American literature, decided to go public. He sent letters to newspapers around the state, and citizens began to express their opinions about the English 306 revision. Fifty-six faculty members from across the university signed a "Statement of Academic Concern." The revised course was revised again so that English 306 would include a broader array of subjects, a diversity of viewpoints, and extensive instruction on how to analyze, argue, and write. But Alan Gribben was unable to take much pleasure in this victory. He found himself vilified at campus rallies. He was the victim of hate mail, rumors, and anonymous late-night phone calls denouncing him as racist. Most members of the English Department stopped speaking to him, and they certainly didn't send graduate students his way or put him on departmental committees. Finally, in the spring of this year, he announced his intention to leave Texas, where he had been for seventeen years, and move to Montgomery, Alabama, where he will teach at a branch of Auburn University. "If I continued to live here," he told a newspaper in Texas, ''I'd have to live under siege." Several aspects of this story make it an almost classic example of what is happening on many campuses today. There is, first of all, the idea underlying the English pa~e four LETTERS from Santa Fe 306 reform that it is perfectly all right-even desirable--to use the classroom and the curriculum for political purpose. This would once have been regarded as unethical. It was once thought that teachers who used the classroom to advance a political agenda were betraying their professional responsibilities. But on many campuses now faculty members have taken the political transformation of their students as a mission. They believe deeply in the radical critique offered by books like Racism and Sexism and see themselves furthering the cause of social justice by using the classroom and the curriculum to advance their views, and they go about their mission openly--indeed, proudly. "I teach in the Ivy League," a Princeton professor recently told the New York Times, " in order to have direct access to the minds of the children of the ruling classes." There are people, myself among them, who object to making teaching and learning into the handmaidens of politics. There ought to be an attempt to get at the complex truth of our experience rather than imposing a single-minded, political interpretation on it. Yes, there has been oppression, but the history of Western civilization in the United States is also marked by the discovery and blossoming of remarkable concepts: individual rights, democracy, the rule oflaw. In 1989, before Tiananmen Square, the distinguished Chinese dissident Fang Li Zhi put it this way: "What we are calling for is extremely basic," he said, "namely, freedom of speech, press, assembly and travel. Concepts of human rights and democracy." He went on, " The founding principles of the U.S. government are a legacy [of the West] to the world." I think of it as my great good fortune that I have opportunities to speak for the freedoms we enjoy. It is not only my right but my pleasure to dissent from university officials who decide, as officials at the University of Maryland did during the Persian Gulf War, that students cannot display the American flag. It might offend Winter 1992 �someone, they said; and they relented only after students called in the media. It is not only my right but my pleasure to dissent from university officials who decide, as administrators at Rice University in Texas did, that students could not tie yellow ribbons to trees in the main academic quadrangle. But I also recognize that I am able to express myself so freely because I am neither part of a university nor do I long for a university career. The views I hold represent dissent from the orthodoxy that reigns on our campuses, and such dissent is not very well tolerated there. That's the most significant part of Alan Gribben's story. He disagreed, and he was driven from the university. About the time Gribben was resigning, I received in the mail a copy of the minutes of a University of Texa'S English department faculty meeting. The person who sent them to me was appalled at talk that had gone on in the meeting of "flushing out" other opponents of the revised English 306 syllabus. This student recognized the signs of the new McCarthyism, and he was afraid of becoming himself a victim of it. "Please let me remain anonymous," he wrote. "If it came out that I had written to you--or to someone else similarly disreputable--! wouldn't be [here] for long." The new McCarthyism--like the old-often works its way by name-calling. People aren't labeled "communist" now, but "racist." Harvard professor Stephen Thernstromfound himself denounced that way. His offenses included using the word Oriental to describe the religion of l 9thcentury Asian immigrants and assigning students to read an article that questioned affirmative action. New York University professor Carol Iannone found herself called racist for writing an article in which she said that certain literary prizes have been awarded on the basis of race rather than literary merit. She was not the first to make such an assertion. Two of the five judges on the National Book Award fie- Winter 1992 tion panel had said the same thing. Nevertheless, Carol Iannone was said to be racist. Sexual harassment is a phrase that has been similarly misused. In the politically correct world of the post-modern campus, it can, apparently, mean almost anything. At the University of Minnesota not long ago six members of the Scandinavian Studies Department were charged with sexual harassment by a group of graduate students. The complaint provided a long list of the professorial activities that had led to the charge: not greeting a student in a friendly enough manner, for example. Not teaching in a sensitive enough way. Not having read a certain novel. The charges against the professors were finally dropped, but not until the faculty members had incurred considerable expense and suffered deep, personal pain. One professorreported that it cost him $2,000 to have a lawyer draft a response to the complaint. Another confessed that he wept when the charges were finally dropped. On crucial issues, faculty members are silent. Perhaps apathy plays some part, but concern for reputation, concern of professional well-being--these, I suspect, play a role as well. The University of California at Berkeley has adopted an ethnic studies requirement to go into effect this fall . Now, this requirement was a major step for the university. There are no other required courses, and so instituting one represents a sharp break with practice. But on this crucial matter, only one-fifth of the eligible faculty members voted. The measure passed narrowly and it seems reasonable to suspect that among the 1,500 or so faculty members who didn't vote were some who had doubts. What is the purpose of the ethnic studies requirement? Is it a response to political pressure? Are curricularrequirements now to be set by interest groups who lobby for them? If, on the other hand, the aim is educational, then aren't there other courses that should be required? Perhaps a course in American history, one that would stress LETTERS from San t a Fe pa g e five �THE TERM FRESHMAN IS FORBIDDEN -- IF YOU USE IT, ONE STUDENT WARNED -YOU COULD BE TAKEN BEFORE THE JUDICIARY BOARD. p ag e s i x the democratic values we share and thus provide balance to the ethnic studies approach, which emphasizes differences that set us apart. Perhaps a course in world history that would prepare students for the decades ahead in which people of all countries and continents are going to be increasingly interdependent. Shouldn't a foreign language be required? If the goal is really to understand people different from ourselves, isn't foreign language study the most effective route? Surely among the 80 percent of faculty who didn't vote were some who had such questions, but the atmosphere on our campuses today doesn't encourage questions. And expressing doubts can be costly. This is true not only of large universities, but of some smaller institutions too. Professor Christina Sommers of Clark University has been interviewing faculty and students across the country, and she has particularly striking interviews from Wooster College in Wooster, Ohio. At Wooster, the textbook Racism and Sexism--the textbook that the University of Texas finally rejected--is required reading for all freshmen. Or fresh persons, I should say. The term freshman is forbidden at Wooster. If you use it, one student warned professor Sommers, you could be taken before the Judiciary Board. Another student described the seminar required of all fust-year students. "Difference, Power, and Discrimination," it is called, with the subtitle "Perspectives on Race, Gender, Class, and Culture." According to the student, the seminar resembled "a reeducation camp" more than a "university program." "Now we know," he said, "that when we read the Declaration of Independence that it's not about equality and inalienable rights--but it is a sexist document written by white male elites." Faculty, who are evaluated on their "gender sensitivity," said they are afraid to speak out. According to one, to do so would be "suicidal." Another said, "I am getting old and tired and I do not want to get fired. Until there is an atmosphere of LETTERS f'om S a nta Fe tolerance, I do not want to go on the record." Promised anonymity, he noted, "What you have here, on the one hand, are a lot of students and faculty who are very skeptical, but they are afraid to voice their reservations. " The point of opposing political correctness is not to silence those who advan6;e it, but to open their views to challenge and debate. This often happens when p.c. enters the larger world, but it will not happen on our campuses, I fear, unless those of us who Iivein the larger world help it to happen. When it is time for us to help our children choose a college, we should ask hard questions about which campuses not only allow but encourage a diversity of opinion. When it comes time for us to make contributions as alumni, we should ask how well the college we attended is doing at making sure all sides are heard. Those who serve on boards of trustees should encourage discussion of free speech itself. Does political correctness reign on this campus? The New York Times reported on its front page about a group, mostly English professors, who are uniting to prove that political correctness is nothing more than the product of overheated conservative imaginations. But they are going to have a very hard time maintaining that view. There are too many examples of p.c. at work, powerful examples like that of Alan Gribben. And there are people from across the political spectrum -- not just conservatives but liberals as well--coming together now to defend free speech on our campuses. The stakes are high. The issue here is whether the rising generation of Americans will come to understand what free inquiry is -- and how it can sometimes be hard --and how it is always necessary if truth and justice are to have a chance. • Winter I 992 �THE POLITICAL SEDUCTION OF THE UNIVERSITY Taken from - Campus - America's Student Newspaper by Debra Cermele SENIOR - THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA There is no such tlring as "great" literature. Or so Professor Lennard Davis instructed the class at the beginning of his University of Pennsylvania "British Novel" course last spring. "Harlequin Romances," Professor Davis said, "are part of the same continuum as the novels we are going to be reading." Although none of the students voiced disagreement, he proceeded to spend the entire semester saving them from the "oppression of [the] imperialized discourse" to which they had supposedly been exposed. His own book Resisting Novels clearly underlines what he teaches his class: "We can no longer smugly think of the novel as the culmination of the human spirit." Instead of analyzing the quality of the English classics as works of art, the class investigated the ways gender, class and sexuality influenced political power within these novels. Rather than being a' critical and comparative examination of the ideas that shaped Western thinking, Professor Davis's lectures were sessions for him to preach politics and sociology to a captive audience. For example, Joseph Conrad's Kurtz and Marlowe, Professor Davis insisted, were involved in a homoerotic relationship. Frankenstein's monster, whatever Mary Shelley may herself have believed, represented her "repressed female sexuality." Whenever students tried to raise issues more relevant to the study of English literature as literature, they were dismissed with indifference. Professor Davis was eager, however, to engage students in class discussions on such topics as a Daily Pennsylvanian columnist's ramblings on classroom behavior of women and the fact that the film Glory was produced and directed by white males. Unfortunately, this example is not atypical of what many college students are experiencing at most of the nation's universities, particularly in humanities departments. Nowadays, the prevailing wisdom dictates that the purpose of a professor is not to enhance the critical ability and knowledge of the next generation, but to transform society in revolutionary ways. And what better way is there to accomplish this than by subtly charging humanities discussions with ideas that are, at root, political? Many humanities courses are lectures that affirm, as fact, dubious ideas that are in reality at the center of debate not only within the humanities, but within the natural and social sciences. An overview of questions that tries to be fair to all sides is simply not presented in these classes, and many students are therefore unaware that essential debates even exist. Why else would no one dispute Professor Davis's contention that "views of gender are socially constructed in such a way that we think they are natural?" Indeed, there was no reason to dispute such a "fact." They had heard it many times before in many other classrooms. The desire to jettison the study of Western culture or at least to depreciate its importance is also trendy. The study of the history of Western ideas is now regarded as nothing more than the "hegemonic culture" seeking to regenerate itself, to the exclusion of "marginalized" groups. (This "hegemony" is comprised of white European males, now often handily referred to as "whitemales.") According to a column by Richard Wi n t e r 1 992 ....... LETTERS f ' o m Sa nr u l'e WHO ARE MARX AND FREUD, FOUCAULT AND DERRIDA, IF NOT, DEAD, WHITE, EUROPEAN MALES? page seven �Bernstein entitled "Academia's Liberals Defend Their Carnival of Canons Against Bloom's 'Killer B's'," the new scholars hold that the ultimate purpose ofliterature is to reflect the sociological perspective of the author: "[These] scholars particularly scorn the idea that certain great works of literature have absolute value or represent some eternal truth. Just about everything, they argue, is an expression of race, class, or gender." A sprinkling of Marx and Gramsci completes the justification for the politicization of the academy, the establishment of a new curriculum dictated mainly by political concerns. If culture exists only to maintain an unjust balance between classes, races, and genders, then the "marginalized" must rise up and eradicate the oppression they experience from the study of "whitemale" culture. Thus, the academy must toss out what the new proponents call the "narrow, outdated interpretation of the humanities and of culture itself' and welcome with open arms the writings of all of those who claim to have been marginalized by "whitemales." (This practice has been graced by the politically correct with the euphemism "multiculturalism.") Since literary quality is no longer relevant, it is sufficient, indeed required, for texts to reflect the extent to which the writer has been oppressed by the dominant culture. These new ideologues are actually displaying a profound hypocrisy in three important ways. In the first place, those who have dedicated their academic careers to destroying the "canon" have themselves become canonical. The fact that students now speak in the jargon of postModemist, neo-Marxist, or feminist critical theory reveals that a new orthodoxy has merely replaced the old. In addition, if they really were advocates, as they maintain, of a relativistic view of culture, they would not be seeking to deprecate the study of Western culture. For a relativist, nothing has any more objective value than anything else; it thus p age e i g ht should not matter which culture American students are studying. Yet these scholars seek to dissuade students from examining the classics. That is, they are imposing value judgements while denying that value judgements can be made. Third, by summarily dismissing Western ideas as the political rationalizations of "Dead White European Males" (DWEM's," as they are now affectionately called), the scholars are perpetrating the worst kind of hypocrisy: they are simultaneously making use of specifically that which they seek to reject. That is, the interest in studying other cultures is a specifically Western idea. Historically, almost all other world cultures have proven to be singularly closed and xenophobic. The ideas of seeking to find value in other ways of life--which these scholars maintain is unique to their own philosophy-emerged only through the evolution of Western civilization. Moreover, ideas such as feminism and post-Modem criticism, which the scholars like to pretend are so new, come directly from those very same "DWEMs" who are vilified by the new Establishment. Who are Marx and Freud, Foucault and Derrida, if not dead, white, European males? Even those feminists who hail Simone de Beauvoir know that Sartre was her main influence. However, these scholars conveniently ignore the essential importance of Western ideas to their very own ideologies. There is no disputing the wisdom of acquiring a knowledge of other cultures. Before it is possible to determine the universals of human nature, it is necessary to examine as broad a spectrum of perspectives as is possible. However, it is of little value merely to study isolated LETTERS fr o m Sa nt a Fe examples of other cultures in a vacuum while neglecting the history of ideas that formed one's own culture. The student then has nothing with which to compare new values, ideas, and achievements. For an American, what would studying the I Ching mean without an understanding of Western ideas? Before abandoning the study of Westem culture, academics should consider that by rejecting the study of works that universalize the human experience, they deny that there is a fundamental basis from which different cultures can build a mutual understanding of circumstantial differences. In fact, by denying any common ground, they perpetuate the notion that individuals of different races, sexes, ethnicities, sexual preference, etc. have not only superficial diversity but built-in differences that preclude any concept of a human experience. What is this but thinly disguised racism and sexism? The ultimate purpose of a university should be to engage students in a dialogue of ideas, with the aim of understanding the truth about and problems of the human condition. If today's students are exposed only to the new trend in academia, the only ideas they will absorb is that they themselves are either victims or perpetrators of oppression. Instead of gaining a knowledge of human nature, they will only come to "understand" the separatist doctrine that ethnic minorities and genders have irrevocably incompatible mentalities. They will come to "realize" that only people with the same genitals and melanin concentrations can understand each other. The new Establishmenthas declared that its goal is to change society. Unfortunately, it may do just that. • Winter 1 992 �ON DEPOLITICIZING THE UNIVERSITY by Robert Weissberg Perhaps only the politically masochistic would want to hear for the hundredth time all the stories of imposed speech codes, required courses on racism, and the bizarre Newspeak world of "equal opportunity" employment. Only administrators seem compelled to deny that the Left has successfully invaded and colonized university life. Disagreements presently concern only such questions as "how much?" and "what are the consequences?" Opposition to politicization seems as self-evidently correct and defensible as the programs of the politically correct are wrongheaded. Undoing the politicization has thus become the rallying cry in the battle against the tenured radicals, the deconstruction workers, and the pandering administrators. Opposition to the "politicization of the university" is an appealing call to arms. It permits us "reach out" and be diverse. Nearly everyone from the religious right to the Marxist left is susceptible to the plea that the university should not be an incarnation of the communist-run agitprop schools of the 1930s. Like wartime stories of atrocities, tales of introductory English courses celebrating the virtues of feminist environmental lesbianism are good for enlistments. OPPOSITION TO THE PC-LEFT MUST STOP HIDING BEHIND THE POLITE AND HIGH-SOUNDING CALL FOR DEPOLITICIZING THE UNIVERSITY. THERE MUST BE A WILLINGNESS TO DEFEND POSITIONS ON SUBSTANCE. The Limits of Anti-Politicization As a political slogan, the battle against the politicization of university life clearly has the tactical and psychological virtues of comfortable legitimacy. Easy politics. Unfortunately, it will not prove very serviceable during the battle. It may even be a delusional disorder. First, it puts us on difficult-to-defend grounds, a situation reminiscent of when priests preached that the purpose of sex was procreation, not recreation. Deep down, it is not convincing. We have all confronted the leftish charge that all education (and all everything, for that matter) is at core political. From a practical perspective, we must accept that there is enough truth in this claim that to maintain the polar opposite puts one in an untenable position. When the Left returns our fire with the charge of hypocrisy they Winter I 9 9 2 LETTERS frnm Santa Fe page nine �will score points and we honestly cannot wiggle out of it. If we define politics in the broadest possible way, even the natural sciences such as physics and chemistry have lurking within them a conception of the world constructed on some obscure politically derived premise of order and causation. In my own field of political science I cannot imagine teaching an antiseptically politically clean course despite every precaution. A disagreeable outsider will surely detect a bias in the readings, a tendency to give some perspectives greater class time, and other manifestations of propagating a political faith. Political preaching can be minimized, we can warn students, we can bring in visitors to add balance, but it is foolish to believe that it could be eliminated altogether. It is a situation akin to food purity--we cannot eliminate food impurities so we set minimum acceptable standards for mouse droppings and insect parts. How Is the Battle To Be Fought? The real battle is about substance, not the desirability of political neutrality. Race-based admission is wrong not because it allows group conflict to intrude into the sheltered world of ideas; it is wrong because it debases the idea of individuality and the principle of merit. Teaching freshmen that all literature is oppression is not a political crime, it is a crime against clear thinking and the purpose of education. Compulsory sensitivity training is wrong not because it permits only one portion of the political spectrum access to students; it is wrong because it smacks of totalitarian thought control. Rampant multiculturalism is wonderful only if one is a fan of ethnocentrism and domestic violence. To be blunt, opposition to the PC-Left must stop hiding behind the polite and high-sounding call for depoliticizing the university. There must be a willingness to defend positions on substance. If somepag e ten L ETTE R S from Santa F e thing is bad historical analysis, it should be called bad historical analysis, not the intrusion of trendy leftish politics into historical analysis (though it may be that, too). There should be no shame and embarrassment in saying that some things are right and others wrong. When Western civilization is attacked by delusional wannabe third-worlders, it is pointless to demand an end to the politicization of the curriculum--one must be willing to say that it is a better form of civilization. Reluctance to defend in public what should be defended is to ultimately lose the war. We must not become like those highly assimilated German Jews who refused to defend themselves because " it might cause trouble." This coming out of the closet will focus the battle. Rather than fight unproductive though psychologically safe skirmishes over side issues, the core evils will be addressed. Affirmative action will be opposed because it violates principles, not because it brings politics to the university. Deconstructionism is not wrong because it interjects politics into literature, it is wrong because it rests on nonsensical assumptions and yields gibberish, not insight. Until this occurs, combating the PC-Left will resemble little more than disjointed civilian resistance to a well-organized occupying army--perhaps some sabotage, a little sniping and noncooperation, but nothing that amounts to more than a nuisance. • Robert Weissberg and I were at Cornell together over 20 years ago. We lost track ofeach other until last year, when Letters appeared in his mailbox. This article is taken from a longer piece sent to me just before we went to press. Ifanyone cares to write Bob (Department of Political Science, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Urbana Illinois 61 8013696), a large packet of essays will no doubt follow - I .A. Wini er 1992 �WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Once we accept the idea that higher education entails opening rather than closing minds, we are still confronted with what, if any, the appropriate limits of speech and action might be. These two essays, with different answers, are the best I could find on the topic. - J.A. UNIVERSITIES MUST DEFEND FREE SPEECH by Benno C. Schmidt Jr. The most serious problems of freedom of expression in the U. S. today exist on our campuses. Freedom of thought is in danger from well-intentioned but misguided efforts to give values of community and harmony a higher place than freedom. The assumption seems to be that the purpose of education is to induce "correct" opinion rather than to search for wisdom and to liberate the mind. On many campuses, perhaps most, there is little resistance to growing pressure to suppress and to punish, rather than to answer, speech that offends notions of civility and community. These campuses are heedless of the oldest lesson in the history of freedom, which is that offensive, erroneous and obnoxious speech is the price of liberty. Values of civility, mutual respect and harmony are rightly prized within the university. But these values must be fostered by teaching and by example, and defended by expression. When the goals of harmony collide with freedom of expression, freedom must be the paramount obligation of an academic community. Much expression that is free may deserve our contempt. We may well be moved to exercise our own freedom to counter it or to ignore it. But universities cannot censor or suppress speech, no matter how obnoxious in content, without violating their justification for existence. Liberal education presupposes that a liberated mind will strive for the courage and composure to face ideas that are fraught with evil, and to answer them. To stifle expression because it is obnoxious, erroneous, embarrassing, not instrumental to some political or ideological end is--quite apart from the invasion of the rights of others -- a disastrous reflection on the idea of the university. It is to elevate fear over the capacity for a liberated and humane mind. Mr. Schmidt is president of Yale. This article is adapted from a longer speech delivered at New York's 92nd Street Y. The Wall Street Journal, Monday, May 6, 1991 Acts of Suppression The freedom of speakers on our campuses goes to the heart of academic freedom. However bizarre, off-beat, or outrageous a speaker may be, however compelling the concerns of protesters, the right to speak is as fundamental an issue of principle as any W int e r 1 992 LETTERS fro m S a nt a F e p a ge e lev e n �UNIVERSITIES CANNOT CENSOR OR SUPPRESS SPEECH, NO MATTER HOW OBNOXIOUS IN CONTENT, WITHOUT VIOLA TING THEIR JUST/FICA TION FOR EXISTENCE. LIBERAL EDUCATION PRESUPPOSES THAT A LIBERA TED MIND WILL STRIVE FOR THE COURAGE ANO COMPOSURE TO FACE IDEAS THAT ARE FRAUGHT WITH EV/LANO TO ANSWER THEM. page twelv e campus can face. This is why I believed so strongly that essential principles of academic freedom were violated at Yale, though not by Yale, earlier this year when protesters, for the most part not from Yale, shouted down Health and Human Services Secretary Louis Sullivan and effectively prevented him from making himself heard to a group that had invited him to speak. A more vexing question of freedom of expression concerns the actual use of university authority to suppress freedom. This is the most serious example of confusion and failure of principle in university governance today. It reminds us how frequently in history threats to free expression have come not from tyranny but from well-meaning persons of little understanding. There is no more important line drawn in our entire corpus of First Amendment law than the line between threats and fight ing words--which may be appropriately punished--and offensive speech generally. For if concerns about dangers of violence are permitted to balloon into justification for punishing any expression that offends, a vague and unpredictable engine of suppression is loosed. Free expression is lost. Any statement that might give offense is at risk. Yet in many universities this is the critical line that has been blurred or abandoned in the effort to create a civil, inoffensive community. Some of the nation's finest universities have empowered groups of faculty and students with roving commissions to punish offensive speech. At the University of Michigan, before judicial intervention, persons were subject to discipline for any statement that "stigmatizes or victimizes ... on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap, or Vietnam-era veteran status ... that creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits." A pamphlet that listed examples of proscribed speech inLETTERS f'°m Santa F e eluded "a male student makes remarks in class like 'women just aren't as good in this field as men.' " Another: "Your student organization sponsors a comedian who slurs Hispanics." So along with utterly boundless options of offensiveness, we have guilt by association. A federal judge threw this out. The University of Wisconsin promulgated a prohibition of "racist or discriminatory comments ... that intentionally demean the race, sex, religion [etc.] of any person or persons ... and create a hostile or demeaning environment for education." Its disciplinary code indicates that "jokes that have the purpose of making the educational environment hostile" are an example of the sort of thing that is barred. The University of Pennsylvania prohibits any comments that "stigmatize or victimize individuals on the basis of race [etc.] and that create an ... offensive academic, living, or work environment." The University of Connecticut had prohibitions on speech that included "conduct causing alarm by making personal slurs." The ban extended to "inappropriately directed laughter, inconsiderate jokes ... and conspicuous exclusions [of others] from conversation." This too was narrowed after a judicial challenge. In the recent Brown case that has received such widespread attention, press accounts might justify the view that the student who was punished had directly and intentionally threatened other individuals with violence. This can surely be punished. The problem is that the Brown rule under which discipline was imposed forbids students from subjecting "another person, group, or class of persons to inappropriate, abusive, threatening, or demeaning action based on race, [etc.]." Under this wide-open formulation, a group of students, faculty and administrators can decide after the fact when speech should be treated as "inappropriate action." Thus, although the facts of the particular case may well have been within the very narrow prohibition of threats that Winter 1992 �free-speech theory and practice have long accepted as legitimate, the rule that authorized this discipline seems vastly wider, indeed almost boundless. The chilling effects on speech of the vagueness and open-ended nature of many universities' prohibitions of offensive speech are compounded by the fact that these codes are typically enforced by faculty and students who commonly assert that vague notions of community are more important to the academy than freedom of thought and expression. Such a view is disastrous to the independence and creativity of the academic mission. A sad footnote to this erosion is the complacency with which many who ought to know better are responding, or failing to respond. An editorial in•the New York Times took the position that because Brown is a private university, and therefore not bound by the First Amendment, it need not treat free expression as a paramount value and should therefore balance the needs of freedom and the needs of civility on campus. This is profoundly wrong. A university ought to be more devoted to freedom than the larger society , which has other goals that compete with the search for truth. This search is the paramount end of the university, its reason for existence. Moreover, universities have a special capacity to answer obnoxious speech. The communal character of the university, the fact that it is replete with opportunities for expression, the capacity of students, faculty, deans and presidents to answer forcefully and promptly, all present manifold opportunities to counteroffensive expression.The current wave of suppression is largely directed at expression that is said to demean racial minorities, women, gays and lesbians, religious groups, persons with disabilities, and other groups that tend to be victimized by ugly stereotypes. Racism and other such prejudices are antithetical to the academic mission of the university, because the search for truth requires that each individual in the uni- Wint er I 99 2 versity be judged on the basis of his or her individual academic merits. But it does not follow that the university should suppress any speech that can plausibly be thought to be racist. A university ought to be the last place where people are inhibited by fear of punishment from expressing ignorance or even hate, so long as others are left free to answer. I have often heard the argument lately that uninhibited freedom of speech was somehow more appropriate in the days when our universities were more homogeneous, while today's far greater racial, religious and cultural diversity call for controls in the interest of harmony and community. That so many people of good will would make such an argument shows how far we have drifted from our confidence in and commitment to freedom. I can only imagine what Madison or Holmes would have thought of this inversion of the theory of free expression. It is precisely societies that are diverse, pluralistic, and contentious that most urgently need freedom of speech and freedom of religion. very dangerous. The political process is too prone to agitation about various sorts of speech to be a wise and stable source of enduring principle. If freedom of thought on campus is to be protected, the universities themselves must summon up the clarity of purpose to defend the principles ofliberty on which the academic mission must rest. • A UNIVERSITY OUGHT TO BE MORE DEVOTED TO FREEDOM THAN Not the Answer THE LARGER SOCIETY, The courts have begun to see bits of the problem that surface occasionally in legislation, and by and large have reacted with justified bewilderment. But the last place universities should look for protection of freedom is the courts. Private universities are in most cases not covered by the First Amendment because their actions are not those of the state. And judges will properly tend to approach issues of freedom within universities with much deference based on long traditions of academic autonomy. Nor does the answer to these problems lie in federal legislation. Rep. Henry Hyde, with the support of the ACLU, has proposed a statute that would subject private colleges and universities that receive federal funds to the strictures of the First Amendment. This is well-intentioned but LETTERS from San1 a Fe WHICH HAS OTHER GOALS THAT COMPETE WITH THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH. THIS SEARCH IS THE PARAMOUNT ENO OF THE UNIVERSITY, ITS REASON FOR EXISTENCE. page thir!een �SAY THE RIGHT THING ... OR ELSE by Judith Martin and Gunther Stent The New York Times, Wednesday, March 20, 1991 Can the university, with its special trust of protecting free speech, be hampered by the restrictions of civility? What kind of a frill is etiquette, anyway, for those in the noble pursuit of truth? These questions are raised whenever a loose-tongued student turns publicly nasty. When Brown University recently expelled such a student, many argued that all restrictions of free speech are intolerable in the university. Brown's president, Vartan Gregorian, agreed with that premise and neatly reclassified the offensive speech as behavior. But the premise is wrong. The special trust of a university is not to foster unlimited speech: It is to foster unlimited inquiry. And totally free speech inhibits rather than enhances the free exchange of ideas. The law cannot restrict such speech without violating our constitutional rights. But etiquette, the extra-legal regulative system that seeks to avert conflict before it becomes serious enough to call in the Jaw, can and does. You may have a legal right to call your mother a slut, but you won't if you know what's good for you. Nor could you convince many people that the controversy that such remarks are likely to provoke will lead to advances in knowledge. The university needs to enforce rules banning speech that interferes with the free exchange of ideas. It must protect the discussion of offensive topics but not the use of offensive manners. It must enable people freely to attack ideas but not one another. pag e fo u rteen LETTERS Education is impossible without the order that prevents intimidation and mayhem. When children first enter school, they must be taught to sit still, refrain from taunting their classmates, show respect for their teacher and wait their turn to talk, or they will never be able to learn. To those who find it horrifying that the university should allow a lesser degree of free speech than the law permits, it might be pointed out that the law itself restricts free speech in its pursuit ofjudicial truth. Try saying some of the things in a courtroom that the law will protect your right to say in a barroom. Jurisprudence uses etiquette in courtroom procedure, not only to restrict speech but to impose standards of dress, comportment and forms of address--matters over which universities have long since abandoned authority. Legislators and diplomats also know the value of keeping speech within the bounds of civility. The parliamentary etiquette book, "Robert's Rules of Order," proscribes "disorderly words" and forbids speakers "to arraign the motives of a member" during strongly worded debate. "It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate," decrees its section on "Decorum." The rougher the conflict, the more manners are needed. Only when insults, harassment, disrespect and obscenity are banned can people engage in truly substantive argument. Of course it is also a personal insult to call someone a racist or sexist. Incivility is no more acceptable in defense than in attack. Rebuttal, however, is a staple of open debate. Members of the university community should always have the opportunity to attack ideas--but not to attack people. The university should be obliged to provide a forum for anyone who wants to argue for or against an idea, provided the argument is made in good faith and a polite manner. This standard of academic etiquette must be required not only in the classroom and lecture hall but wherever the community of scholars gathers--residence halls, dining commons, recreational facilities. Invective, whether spoken or conveyed through posters or graffiti, in the classroom or in the community, is detrimental to rational debate, to which universities are dedicated. • ATTACK IDEAS, NOT PEOPLE Judith Martin writes the Miss Manners syndicated column. Gunther Stent is chairman of the department of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. from Santa F e Wi ni er 1 992 �ANNOUNCEMENTS The creation of an Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics on the Santa Fe campus St. John's College Receives 3.1 Million Dollar Trust St. John's College Summer Seminars for Adults 1992 St. John's College has been awarded a grant of $207,320 from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The grant will be used in the creation of an Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics on the Santa Fe campus. The institute will offer a oneyear, graduate level, non-credit, certificate program in the classic texts of Eastern civilization. In addition to studying the major works of China and India, students also will receive a full year of language studies in Chinese or Sanskrit. The institute will be staffed by St. John's tutors. We have always taken Great Books seriously at St. John's, and this institute is a way for us to take seriously the classic texts, the literature and the philosophy of the East. St. John's College recently received the largest single gift in its history. Mara and Charles Robinson of Santa Fe, New Mexico have established a trust that has resulted in a 3.1 million dollar gift to St. John's. The Robinsons have been actively involved with St. John's College since 1982 when Mrs. Robinson enrolled in the Graduate Institute on the Santa Fe campus. She graduated in 1983 with a master's degree in liberal education. Between 1984 and 1990 Mrs. Robinson served on the St. John's College Board of Visitors and Governors and has since continued her participation in various aspects of the college. "My experience as a student in St. John's College and as a member of its Board of Visitors and Governors has made my respect for St. John's grow through the years. My husband and I believe strongly in the program and ideals of St.John's and our support expresses our confidence in its leadership as well as its goals. We hope that future students will profit from its educational program and enjoy as stimulating an intellectual experience as I have throughout my studies at St. John's." This gift is equal to approximately 10% of the total current St. John's endowment. Needless to say, we are not only grateful, we are overwhelmed by the Robinson's generosity. - J.A. This summer St. John's College offers six, week-long seminars and one workshop in Landscape Drawing. Participants may enroll in one seminar each week for 1, 2, or 3 weeks. Each seminar is limited to 18 participants. Inquiries should be directed to: James Carey, Director Institute for the Study of Eastern Classics, St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 Phone: (505) 988-4361 We are very grateful to the W. H. Brady Foundation for underwriting this issue of Week One - Jul~ 19th - 25th Dante - Purgatory or Novels of the Southwest Willa Cather - Death Comes to the Archbishop Rudy Anaya - Bless Me Ultima Scott Momaday - The Ancient Child \;\eek T\\o - Jul~ 26th - \ugust Isl De Tocqueville - Democracy in America or Opera Mozart - Don Giovanni Strauss - Der Rosenkavalier Week Three· .\ugust 2nd - 8th Shakespeare - Merchant of Venice, As You Like It, Twelfth Night or Dostoevski - The Devils or Landscape Drawing - Workshop For information write: St John's College Summer Seminars - C, 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 LE TT ER SfromSanta Fe Faculty Position - Kenyon College Kenyon College has a course of study called the Integrated Program in Humane Studies (IPHS). It is a multi-year, team-taught course based on the classic texts of European and other world cultures. They are now looking for a program director whose duties would include teaching, curriculum development, administration, and leadership of an ongoing faculty seminar. A doctorate, teaching excellence and scholarly achievement are prerequisites. A cover letter, vita, examples of scholarly work and three letters of reference should be directed to Academic Dean's Office, Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, 43022, by February 28, 1992. Winter 1992 LETTERS from Santa F e page fifteen �PROFILE Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the Great Books of Western civilization. The program requires four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/ faculty ratio is 8: 1. St. John's is independent and non-sectarian. Degree Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55% men and 45 % women, from 30 states and several foreign countries. Fifty-seven percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the Newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact Nancy Buchenauer, Directorof the Graduate Institute, (505) 982-3691 ext. 249. LE TT ER SfromSanta Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No.231 Santa Fe, N.M. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 16 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Winter 1992 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Winter 1992 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John's College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1992 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Cheney, Lynne V. Cermele, Debra Weissberg, Robert, 1941- Schmidt, Benno C., 1942- Martin, Judith, 1938- Stent, Gunther S. (Gunther Siegmund), 1924-2008 Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1992_Winter Presidents https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/1c77405361b442cf19a76a340f458dc3.pdf 232f5b3e4cec377862e6563e0df9d30c PDF Text Text LETTERSJrom Santa Fe St. John's College-Santa Fe, New Mexico Spring 1993 "BUT WHAT WILL I DO WITH IT?" OR, BUSINESS AND LIBERAL EDUCATION I I NS IDE THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY page2 CHARTING A COURSE FOR LIBERAL EDUCATION pages CREATIVITY, THE CLASSICS AND THE CORPORATION page 7 LIBERAL EDUCATION: PREPARING TOMORROW'S BUSINESS EXECUTIVES page 9 AN ORAL EXAM FOR THE NEW LIBERAL ARTS GRADUATE page 12 once read how the colony of Virginia asked the British Crown for authority to begin a college in the New World in hopes that a proper education might help save souls. The response was blunt-"Souls? Damn your souls. Raise tobacco!" We have never been, it would seem, without the conflict of making a living on one side and liberal learning on the other. But, today, the situation might well be more extreme than in the past. As I mentioned in a previous edition of this newsletter, probably no more than 15 to 20 percent of all college students today are concentrating on the liberal arts or some area of the liberal arts, and the percentage decreases each year. Let me flirt with heresy for a second and say that surely worse things have happened in the world, even in the world of higher education. Professional schools and pre-professional courses have improved immensely over the years. They offer challenges to the intellect and often broaden rather than constrict a person's horizons. Many times they offer the rigor and richness once found in liberal education. And they are increasingly attracting the better students. Conversely, liberal education today, in many places, is a pretty sad affair. Little rigor, much politics, and scarcely a view of what excellence or even "well-roundedness" might be. Today liberal education is not often the formation of penetrating minds and the cultivation of high character (much less the saving of souls). Far too many institutions have abandoned the broad sweep of general education requirements in important fields of knowledge and substituted choice for sequence, aimlessness for rigor, and boutique courses for difficult fields such as mathematics and science. An a la carte curriculum is not liberal education. Liberal education is, we forget, the polar opposite of dilettantism, unfocused electives and groundlessness. What I have tried to do in this issue, besides my usual moaning about the condition of the world, is not to show that a professional education is bad but that it is not nearly as useful either to a career or to life as a good liberal education. I simply wanted to re-present the old view that a solid liberal arts background is good in itself and, in an age when most people will change jobs eight or nine times before they die, good for the more practical parts of life, too. JUST SAY NO TO COLLEGE page 14 John Agresto �FROM THE IDEA OF A UNIVERSITY DISCOURSE VII: "KNOWLEDGE VIEWED IN RELATION TO PROFESSIONAL SKILL" "A CULTIVATED INTELLECT, BECAUSE by John Henry Cardinal Newman IT IS A GOOD IN ITSELF, BRINGS WITH IT A POWER AND A GRACE TO EVERY WORK AND OCCUPATION WHICH IT UNDERTAKES, AND ENABLES US TO BE MORE USEFUL, AND TOA GREATER NUMBER." pa ge t wo • We know, not by a direct and simple vision, not at a glance, but, as it were, by piecemeal and accumulation, by a mental process, by going round an object, by the comparison, the combination, the mutual correction, the continual adaptation, of many partial notions. . . . Such a union and concert of the inte llectual powers, such an enlargement and development, such a comprehensiveness, is necessarily a matter of training . But, such a training ... is not mere application, however exemplary, which introduces the mind to truth, nor the reading many books, nor the getting up many subjects, nor the witnessing many experiments, nor the a ttending many lectures. All this is short of enough; a man may have done it all, yet be lingering in the vestibule of knowled ge: he may not realize what his mouth utters; he may not see with his mental eye what confronts him; he may h ave no grasp of things as they are; or at least he may have no power at all of advancing one step forward of himself, in consequ ence of w hat he has already acquired, no power of d iscriminating between truth and falsehood, of sifting out the grains of truth from the mass, of arranging L E T TE R S f r o m Santa Fe things according to their real value, and, if I may use the phrase, of building up ideas . . . . The bodily eye, the organ for apprehending material objects, is provided by nature; the eye of the mind, of which the object is truth, is the work of discipline and habit. This process of training, by which the intellect, instead of being formed or sacrificed to some particular or accidental purpose, some specific trade or profession, or study of science, is disciplined for its own sake, for the perception of its own proper object, and for its own highest culture, is called liberal education... . • Now. .. some great men ... insist that education should be confined to some p a rticula r and narrow end, a nd sh ould issu e in some definite work, which can b e weighed and measured . "Useful" and "utility" becomes their watchword. They very naturally go on to ask what there is to show for the expense of a university; what is the real worth in the market of the article called "a liberal education." • ''Tis matter of astonishment," Locke says in his work on education, "tha t m en of quality a nd parts should suffer themselves to be so far misled by custom a nd implicit faith. Reason, if con sulted w ith, would advise that their children's time should be spent in acquiring what might be useful to them, w hen they come to be men, rather than that their heads should be stuffed with a deal of trash, a great part whereof they usually never do ('tis certain they never need to) think on again as long as they live; and so much of it as does stick by them they are only the worse for." S pr i n g 1 993 �In another passage he distinctly limits utility in education to its bearing on the future profession or trade of the pupil, that is, he scorns the idea of any education of the intellect, simply as such. "Can there be any thing more ridiculous," he asks, "than that a father should waste his own money, and his son's time, in setting him to learn the Roman language, when at the same time he designs him for a trade, wherein he, having no use of Latin, fails not to forget that little which he brought from school, and which 'tis ten to one he abhors for the ill-usage it procured him? Could it be believed, unless we have every where amongst us examples of it, that a child should be forced to learn the rudiments of a language, which he is never to use in Nevertheless, if a liberal education consists in the culture of the intellect, and if that culture be in itself a good, here, without going further, is an answer to Locke's question; for if a healthy body is a good in itself, why is not a healthy intellect? + Let us take "useful" to mean, not what is simply good, but what tends to good, or is the instrument of the course of life that he is designed to, and neglect all the while the writing a good hand, a nd casting accounts, which are of great advantage in all conditions of life, and to most trades indispensably necessary?" Nothing of course can be more absurd than to neglect in education those matters which are necessary for a boy's future calling; but the tone of Locke's remarks evidently implies more than this, and is condemnator y of any teaching which tends to the genera l cultivation of the mind. Sp r i n g 1 99 3 .. good; and in this sense . . . I will show you how a liberal education is truly and fully a useful, though it be not a professional, edu cation. I lay it down as a principle, which will save us a great deal of anxiety, tha t, though the us e ful is not always good , the good is always useful. I say then, if a liberal education be good, it must necessarily be useful too. LETT E RS f r om Sa nta F e + Health is a good in itself, though nothing came of it, yet . .. we never think of it except as useful as well as good, though at the same time we cannot point out any definite and distinct work or production which it can be said to effect. And so as regards intellectual culture .. . . I only deny tha t we must be able to point out, before we have any right to call it useful, some art, or business, or profession, or trade, or work, as resulting from it. . . . On the other t hand, as the body may be tended, cherished, and exercised with a simple view to its general health, so may the intellect also be generally exercised in order to perfect its state; and this is its cultivation. As a man in health can do what an unhealthy man cannot do ... so in like manner general culture of mind is the best aid to professional and scientific study, and educa ted men can do what illiterate cannot; a nd th e man who has learned to think and to reason and to compare and to discriminate and to ana lyze, who h as refined his taste, a nd formed his judgment, a nd sharpened his m ental vision, will not indeed at once be a lawyer, or a pleader, or an orator, or a statesman, or a physician, or a good landlord, or a man of business, or a soldier, or an eng ineer, or a p a ge th r e e �+ I have confined myself to saying that that training of the intellect, which is best for the individual himself, best enables him to discharge his duties to society. If then a practical end must be assigned to a university course, I say it is that of training good members of society. It does not promise a generation of Aristotles or Newtons, of Napoleons or Washingtons, of Raphaels or Shakespeares, though such miracles of nature it has before now contained within its precincts. Nor is it content on the other hand with forming the critic or the experimentalist, the economist or the engineer, though such too it includes within its scope. But a university training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end; it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying the national taste, at supplying true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating the exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life. It is the education which gives a man a clear conscious view of his own opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing them, and a force in urging them. It teaches him to see things as they are, to go right to the point, to disentangle a skein of thought, to detect what is sophistical, and to discard what is irrelevant. It prepares him to fill any post with credit, and to master any subject with facility. It shows him how to accommodate himself to others, how to throw himself into their state of mind, how to bring before them his own, how to influence them, how to come to an understanding with them, how to bear with them. He is at home in any society, he has common ground with every class; he knows when to speak and when to be silent; he is able to converse, he is able to listen; he can ask a question pertinently, and gain a lesson seasonably, when he has nothing to impart himself; he is ever ready, yet never in the way; he is a pleasant companion, and a comrade you can depend upon; he knows when to be serious and when to trifle, and he has a sure tact which enables him to trifle with gracefulness and to be serious with effect. He has the repose of a mind which lives in itself, while it lives in the world, and which has resources for its happiness at home when it cannot go abroad. He has a gift page four LETTERS from Santa Fe chemist, or a geologist, or an antiquarian, but he will be placed in that state of intellect in which he can take up any one of the sciences or callings I have referred to, or any other for which he has a taste or special talent, with an ease, a grace, a versatility, and a success, to which another is a stranger. In this sense then ... mental culture is emphatically useful. This then is how I should solve the fallacy, for so I must call it, by which Locke and his disciples would frighten us from cultivating the intellect, under the notion that no education is useful which does not teach us some temporal calling, or some mechanical art, or some physical secret. I say that a cultivated intellect, because it is a good in itself, brings with it a power and a grace to every work and occupation which it undertakes, and enables us to be more useful, and to a greater number. which serves him in public, and supports him in retirement, without which good fortune is but vulgar, and with which failure and disappointment have a charm. The art which tends to make a man all this is in the object which it pursues as useful as the art of wealth or the art of health, though it is less susceptible of method, and less tangible, less certain, less complete in its result. Spring 1993 �defense of the liberal arts based on "relevancy" is always problematic. As a practical matter, career decisions are increasingly being made by students at the time they choose to attend a university and certainly by the time they select a field of concentration in their second year. When the career benefits of a liberal arts degree are obscured, students tend to select disciplines that have higher immediate returns and ignore the needs both they and the business community have for more satisfying and expansive educational programs. The gift society offers our educated youth of today is the freedom to choose various life paths, ... yet the pressure to choose seems, ironically, to narrow the range of options. A liberal education preserves options while at the same time providing the tools and the time to select intelligently among them. In the corporate world of today, where job qualifications and opportunities change with disturbing frequency, the broadest kind of educational preparation will often prove to be the most practical. But if this is so, why are the liberal arts in jeopardy within the corporate hiring structure? I take it that corporations are undervaluing liberal education in the search for graduates with technical and business skills that may be relevant only in the short run. Solid grounding in the arts, sciences and languages is overlooked and the long-run goal of globally competitive corporate leadership is jeopardized. In this sense then the injury done the "corporations at risk" appears primarily to be a self-inflicted one. If top management would just send different signals to the hiring committees, the problem should disappear. But of course, it is not that easy. Liberal education bears some responsibility for the state we find ourselves in. And I say this as president of an institution committed to liberal arts and sciences which just graduated a class dominated by students of like mind. The burden of liberal education has to be that it prepares students not for a vocation, but for life. We do not try to anticipate and teach to narrow specialties. We take instead a broad view of education and teach for the ages; we value the past as a guide to the future. That is a noble objective, but it does not always withstand scrutiny. During the last decade, many colleges compromised the conditions under which a liberal education best operates. Academic permissiveness encouraged students to design their own curriculums. This approach compromised the breadth of liberal education in two respects, both of which impact upon the business community. Left on their own, students often de-emphasized the demanding sciences aspect of liberal education in favor of more congenial humanities and social sciences programs. As the essence of analytical thought is the scientific method, we have been derelict in not requiring of students that they be conversant with both arts and Spring 1 9 9~3 LETTERS/ram Santa Fe CHARTING A COURSE FOR LIBERAL EDUCATION by Paul R. Verkuil A IN THE CORPORATE WORLD OF TODAY, WHERE JOB QUALIFICATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES CHANGE WITH DISTURBING FREQUENCY, THE BROADEST KIND OF EDUCATION PREPARATION WILL OFTEN PROVE TO BETHE MOST PRACTICAL. page five �sciences in defining a liberal education. Today colleges have largely backed off from this self-directed course selection era (indeed some of us never entered it) and that should help bring business recruiters back to the liberal arts graduates. A related and no less critical oversight at many colleges has been a de-emphasis on foreign languages and a crippling of international studies. It is now obvious that our corporations deal in global markets and are at an increasing disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign business in terms of qualified multi-cultural personnel. One cannot correct this imbalance with quick fix language study just before executives are sent abroad. A total educational approach to the country and region involved is the best method for achieving an educated and culturally sensitive business elite. Area studies programs that deal on an interdisciplinary basis with language, literature and culture of a given region are ideal laboratories for producing Americans for the world business stage. Fortunately, there is a revival of language requirements on many campuses and this should lead to greater interest in area studies .... A mutual obligation arises: Universities must insure that liberal education lives up to its credo of depth and breadth; corporate sector hiring must recognize and act on the values inherent in such long-term educational preparation. •• • deeply troubled about the degree to which society was unprepared for dealing with new energies released through scientific discovery. Yet, while he enthusiastically criticized his own education, in the final analysis Adam's message was not that university education could anticipate and solve all the problems of new technology, but that it took a lifetime of learning and study to do so. In fact in the Education of Henry Adams, Adams criticizes his college experience in an oddly complimentary way: "Harvard College, as far as it educated at all, was a mild and liberal school which sent young men into the world with all they needed to make respectable citizens, and something of what they wanted to make useful men." I take comfort from Adam's observation because it implicitly recognizes that colleges can never expect to satisfy demands for fully educating our leaders. Of course we should strive to emphasize usefulness over respectability wherever possible. Ultimately, however, the liberal arts offers an appreciation of how much there is to know in life and the desire and means for beginning the quest. It offers insights into how persons of consequence, like Adams himself, lived their lives and it encourages others to follow in their path. This article is taken from a longer paper delivered by Paul Verkuil, president and CEO of AAA and former president of William and Mary, to the Corporate Council on the Liberal Arts. Henry Adams spent much of his life berating the backward-looking education he received at Harvard College. In the 19th century as today, Adams saw technology overtaking established thought. He was pa ge s ix L ET T E R S fr om Sant a Fe I make free men out of children by means of books anda balance. Taken from the St. John's College Seal S p r in g 1993 �CREATIVITY. THE CLASSICS AND THE CORPORATION by Nannerl 0. Keohane Are liberal arts colleges and universities these days deluding ourselves and our students, their parents and their employers, about how well our graduates are prepared for what they do when they leave our ivy halls? We think not. In fact, we are convinced, now more than ever, that a liberal arts education is the best possible preparation for the leaders of the future, including the entrepreneurs and corporate CEOs as well as the scientists and the lawyers, the artists and the politicians. How do we support this claim? an employer. We offer time and space for thinking, for discussion, for roaming through the ages and across the world on voyages of discovery . As Alice Freeman Palmer, President of Wellesley said in 1897: "We go to college to know, assured that knowledge is sweet and powerful, that a good education emancipates the mind and makes us citizens of the world." Such stock elements in our social rhetoric, however bracing such rhetoric may be, are not however likely to convince the pragmatist who asks us what is the use of it all. To answer such challenges, to convince the skeptical parent or employer of the worth of what we do, we must show how a liberal arts education makes a difference in will evolve and alter overnight. It will be more and more a world shaped by human handiwork and accessible to technological restructuring. Today we have, compared with even a few years ago, a vastly increased capacity to transform the features of the globe, to touch the universe. Our tools of measurement and memory and control are powerful beyond the imagination of our predecessors, and extended every moment. In such a world, the ability to participate with some degree of comprehension, and even more to share in shaping the continuing flux and change, will depend on knowledge of general principles, on habits, on analysis, and on suppleness of mind . Liberal learning gives one the critical capacity for distance, for one' s ability to work effectivelyand more than work, to manage and to change-in the world of the future. Among the few things we can safely say about our future is that it will be a time of accelerating flux and change. The world our children will inhabit is virtually certain to be a world in which skills and instruments and ways of doing things assessment, for stepping back and making judgments, for comparing what one sees before one with things of other times and places, for getting a perspective on the world. These are crucial attributes for anyone who sets out to master new complex phenomena, to ma ke lasting and productive changes. In the world that we can forecast for our children, anyone who lacks LE TT E RS fro m Sa nt a F e page seve n THE VALUE OF LIBERAL LEARNING I would begin by arguing that a good liberal arts education is not a dress rehearsal for anything: it is reality, a re ality that involves maturing intellectually and personally, developing crucial skills. The real world lives in our libraries and laboratories and dormitories, as real a world as any we know. The virtue of the ivory tower metaphor, of course, is that it does convey something precious (in the non-derogatory mean ing of that word) in what we are all about. We do offer some shelter from the relentless pressures of making an immediate livelihood and responding to the requirements of a profession or Sp rin g 19 93 �such broad-based training, who is narrowly educated in specific technical skills of any kind, will become obsolescent almost overnight. Any immediate advantage that such a graduate will have in fitting into a new job will shortly be wiped out-and then forever lost-against the adaptive skills of someone who has been taught how to learn, where to go for answers, how to judge the answers that are given, and how to understand and communicate ideas. This is our tremendous utilitarian advantage over any trade school, any narrow professional or preprofessional education: We teach people how to learn, and thus ensure them against the fate of obsolescence. Their future employers will not have to spend good time and money in perpetually retraining them as skills change, nor will they be so likely to be out of a job because the world has passed them by. Liberal learning delights in equipping students for an array of possible futures, for the individual and for society. In doing so, a liberal education makes several futures possible, and gives liberally educated people an edge in determining which of those futures will come to be. One of my favorite responses to this question hinges on the double meaning of the phrase itself: a liberal education. On the one h and, a liberal education was designed for free persons, not slaves or helotspeople (originally, of course, men) of free birth who were expected to have some responsibilities of public service and some standing within their communities. In order to prepare such people well to lead such lives, a liberal education was required to instill in them the core values of their society, rooting them in history and culture, to make sure they understood and respected ancient truths and carried on worthy traditions. The second meaning of a liberal education, however, stands diametrically opposed to this: the liberation of the mind, freeing the student from unexamined assumptions, opening horizons from narrow parochialism onto the wide, wide world. In order to accomplish this second part of its purpose, liberal learning needs to reward quite different habits of mind from those promoted by the first: a tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, an ability to be at ease with suspended judgment when closure would be premature. When liberal learning works as it is intended to work, these two diametrically opposed meanings move in, against and through each other in a true dialectic- a dialogue, a synthesis, a play between opposites to capture the best of both in a truer whole. The juxtaposition of familiarity with the classics of the human mind, with a penchant for creativity and critical originality, creates the distinctive strength of a liberal education. The good teacher imparts both a respect for the given, for the reasons for what is, and also a healthy skepticism a nd habit of continuing inquiry. The former is at least as difficult as the latter, for simply parroting old truths is not liberal learning; the student must be inside those truths, must take them on, adapt them, make them his own. pag e e i g ht LETT E R S from Sa nta F e WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT WHAT WE DO? In a community devoted to liberal learning, in the interplay of teacher and student, in the mind of every scholar, there should be a fruitful tension of positive and negative: a respect for the ceremonies, a willingness to follow rituals and fall in line with tradition-but also a questioning and questing spirit that never lets itself become wholly absorbed in anything that is. Nannerl Keohane, newly appointed president of Duke University, delivered a longer version of this article at a conference "Corporations at Risk: Liberal Learning and Private Enterprise." . . . A LIBERAL EDUCATION MAKES SEVERAL FUTURES POSSIBLE, AND GIVES LIBERALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE AN EDGE IN DETERMINING WHICH OF THOSE FUTURES WILL COME TO BE. Spr in g 199 3 �LIBERAL EDUCATION : PREPARING TOMORROW'S BUSINESS EXECUTIVES by Peter A. Benoliel Plain and simple, a liberal education, is the optimal vehicle in undergraduate years for preparing for a business management career. I speak not as an academician but rather as a practicing executive who contends daily with the many-faceted challenges of business, utilizing many of the techniques and disciplines taught in business schools. The latter remark introduces a concept which I think we continue to lose sight of in assessing the role of educational institutions, namely, the distinction between education and training. It appears to me that the great bulk of what is today called education is really training, whether it be in specific professional disciplines such as engineering, medicine and the law, or in more prosaic but no less necessary vocational training. In no way do I wish to demean or minimize the importance of training or the role of educational institutions in providing it. My immediate point is that the majority of our students complete their undergraduate years under the misconception of being educated, when in reality they are undergoing sophisticated training. This brings me to my central point, which is that the undergraduate years of a Spring 1993 student, especially if that student wishes a career in business management, would most profitably be spent not in taking business courses leading to a degree but rather in undergoing a liberal educational experience. It then becomes incumbent upon me not only to define what I mean by a liberal education but to enumerate those qualities, characteristics and skills that may be necessary for a fulfilling career in business management. I must further make a distinction between those characteristics which for the most part are innate and those which are acquired. Understand, please, that in describing characteristics, I am thinking of those individuals who will rise above middle management into levels of top responsibility. Necessary Innate Characteristics 1. High degree of intelligenceintellectual curiosity 2. Creativity 3. Goal orientation 4. High energy-drive 5. Leadership capabilitiesinter-personal skills. Acquired Characteristics 1. Problem solving-analytical skills 2. Synthesis capabilities-ability to relate seemingly disparate factors into a meaningful whole 3. Perspective-ability to maintain a balanced consideration of factors-an overview 4. Critical judgment-in part, a synthesis of the three preceding characteristics 5. Specific skills acquired through on-the-job training supplemented by formalized modes of instruction, including school courses, seminars, reading: LETTERS from Santa Fe ... THE MAJORITY OF OUR STUDENTS COMPLETE THEIR UNDERGRADUATE YEARS UNDER THE MISCONCEPTION OF BEING EDUCATED, WHEN IN REALITY THEY ARE UNDERGOING SOPHISTICATED TRAINING. page nine �The above is not an all-inclusive list, and there are areas where no sharp distinction can be made between those characteristics acquired and those innate. Further, it may legitimately be doubted whether the specific skills I have enumerated can be acquired on the basis suggested. I differ, and will endeavor to explain why by submitting my concept of a liberal education. My ideal student would have exposure to the natural sciences, engineering, and/ or mathematics, with in-depth study in some specific area. This should comprise at least 25 percent of a student's undergraduate activity. Such a student should also have an introductory exposure to the social sciences, and this area of activity might occupy as much as fifteen percent of his time. The balance, and certainly no less than half of the student's activity, should be in the humanistic studies, with in-depth involvement in at least one area. I recognize that in any such educational process there are certain elements of training as distinct from education. In my experien ce, these can be minimal, a nd the emphasis should be on a Socratic, dialectical approach. Hopefully, it is not necessary to paint the picture in full to see that such an educational experience is almost precisely designed to develop more fully the innate characteristics I previously cited as needful for a manager, as well as enabling that individual to acquire the aforementioned skills of analysis, synthesis, perception and critical judgment. To put it another way, I strongly contend that such a program, designed as it is to expose a person to the achievements--scientific, technical, political, social, philosophical and artistic-of great minds past and present, will nurture the heart and mind of the student, so as to incite to fever pitch his curiosity, increase his ability to assimilate new ideas and skills, nurture and sensitize his spiritual, moral and aesthetic sensibilities, and promote the self-generation of perspective and overview. In short, develop the critical and analytical faculties without dulling that individual's vision. Now it may be fairly asked how, in fact, such a n individual with no specific skills is able to enter the job market. I would submit that, at entry level, any management or professional position (the law and medicine excepted) requires very little in the way of skills that such an individual would not have or could not readily acquire. I speak of positions ordinarily filled by newly g r a duated engineers, scientists and holders of degrees in business. An honest appraisal of starting positions would show that they demand very little in the way of technical knowledge that the individual would not already possess or could not acquire on the job, supplemented by study. I contend that merely to train an individual as a mechanical engineer, as a ch em ist, o r in business is to unnecessarily narrow his vision, and possibly deny him broader horizons. All this does have clear implications regarding current attitudes of the academic world and of business. I L E T TE R S f r o m Sant a Fe S p rin g 19 93 Technical-Engineering, Scientific Financial Legal Marketing ManufacturingProduction Behavioral Sciences I CONTEND THAT MERELY TO TRAIN AN INDIVIDUAL AS A MECHANICAL ENGINEER, AS A CHEMIST, OR IN BUSINESS IS TO UNNECESSARILY NARROW HIS VISION, AND POSS/BLY DENY HIM BROADER HORIZONS. pa ge t e n �suggest consideration of the following ideas strongly implied by my views: 1. The undergraduate degree in business should be eliminated. It is not necessary and has little relevance to the individual's intellectual and spiritual development, let alone what he or she will encounter in the business world. This does not mean that individual courses in finance, accounting, marketing and distribution should not be retained for individuals to take as electives, although my personal predilection is to avoid such courses in undergraduate years. This kind of material is easily assimilated later by a well-trained mind. 2. More extensive use should be made of cooperative programs which enable the student to leave the academic world for specific activities, work or research in the "real world." There need not always be a specific relationship between a student's academic program and his "co-op project." In other words, I am suggesting that no one be admitted to business school fresh out of college. 4. Greater use should be made by the world of business and industry of graduate business schools by allowing managers to take sabbaticals of one month to a year for attending graduate business courses. 5. Business and industry should not require that an individual have a degree in a specific skill in order to gain entry into a position. It should be a relatively simple matter, through testing and interviewing, to ascertain an individual's capabilities to adequately perform job entry positions. Adequate provision should be made by business to enable individuals to supplement their on-the-job training with specific courses in specific disciplines. 6. Business and industry is missing a valuable resource by requiring that all people have college degrees before being given consideration for management positions. There was a time when a college degree was not a requisite. Now, it has become tantamount to working papers. This is unfortunate. Individuals with energy, ambition and intellectual capabilities can and should be given all possible opportunities. about the first three suggestions. The latter three carry with them many practical problems, not the least of which revolve around the resources of smaller companies, many of which do not have the managerial depth and financial capabilities to support the kind of programs suggested. There has been a marked tendency among our brightest students to pursue careers in law, government and scientific research in preference to business management. In many cases, they do so with a mistaken view that business does not serve the noble purposes embodied in other callings. It is not the purpose of this paper to refute such a contentionexcept to suggest that well-managed business enterprises are crucial to the nation's and indeed the world's social, economic and political viability, and I say this in terms of the quality of human existence. In today's world of international trade and the growing activities of the multinational enterprise, talented and committed business leaders are in increasing demand. How best to develop them? Robert Goheen, former president of Princeton University, once remarked, "The true basis of a liberal education is its power to nourish a mind-its ability both to enliven and enlarge a man's conscious jurisdiction. It seems to draw out our potential for awareness, for rational understanding, and thus to extend our capacities for beneficent service, for responsible action, wherever we happen to find our chosen work." 3. The principal form of academic training for business should be the graduate M.B.A. programs offered by many institutions. I would submit that more relevant use of M.B.A. programs would be made by individuals who have had at least two year's experience in the business world. I realize the above suggestions may be greeted with a great deal of justifiable skepticism. I wish to emphasize that I am quite serious Peter A. Benoliel is chairman and CEO of Quaker Chemical Corporation and former member of the St. John's College Board. Spring 1993 LETTERS from Santa Fe page eleven �AN ORAL EXAM FOR THE Soon those new college graduates who have not yet found employment will be knocking on corporate doors asking for jobs. The business world will affirm and reaffirm its belief in liberal education, and then rush to hire graduates with business degrees. The liberal arts graduate will try to convince his future employer that, h aving studied philosophy or literature or sociology or a bit of math, he can do everything, or at least something. Perhaps a little honesty on both sides would help. Though a liberal education may b e o f in estim a ble benefit to the indiv idual, its immediate social utility is not readily apparent-a doctor is not a better doctor because he has read Homer in the original Greek. Such an education may well contribute to an individual's personal edification during his p rofessional life-but that's really beside the point to the employment officer looking at the recent graduate on the other side of the d esk. Sensing that it has a hard case to make in the face of the natural skepticism of the business community, liberal education has come up with some ready, but shaky, responses. The first involves "skills." "N o, o u r graduates have n o t studied accounting or business law or marke ting, but they have high intelligence and have developed truly useful skills, skills of thinking, speaking, communicating. Their combination of brains and skills makes them fast learners and universally helpful." This isn't a totally useless argument, but the business community usually needs more than skills. It needs employees with "content" as well. And business and technical programs have been able to attract increasingly impressive students over the years ; their graduates have native ability, skills and useful knowledge. The second line of defense for liberal arts g radua tes is to argue that what they know is useful, even if not technical. That knowledge of literature and English, of philosophy and his tory, of mathematics a nd science gives their minds a kind of furnishing that h as social and economic utility if properly directed. Through reading and study, the liberally educated candidate may actually know more than others about human nature, its limits, and the achievements of men and their failures. He or she may best be able to grow on the job, to adjust to changes, write more powerfully, see problems and propose solutions more cogently, work independently and not fear to explore the limits of technical expertise. These kinds of things one can learn from studying history, literature or philosophy. It is no surprise tha t the t op executives of the nation's best companies have been, far more often than not, educated in the liberal arts, n ot a technical field. But caution is in order. If w hat the liberal arts gradu ate studied under the guise of a liberal education was nothing more than the latest of fashionable attacks o n Western LETTE R S fr o m Sa n ta Fe Sp rin g 1993 NEW LIBERAL ARTS GRADUATE by John Agresto THOUGH A LIBERAL EDUCATION MAY BE OF INESTIMABLE BENEFIT TO THE INDIVIDUAL, ITS IMMEDIATE SOCIAL UTILITY IS NOT READILY APPARENTA DOCTOR IS NOT A BETTER DOCTOR BECAUSE HE HAS READ HOMER IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. pa ge t we l ve �• civilization, or if his philosophy and literature courses did not teach him to learn from the world's great thinkers and writers but, rather, to play theoretical games, treating all ideas as "culture-bound" or expressions of authorial prejudices, or if he was taught that all history is really the history of oppression and oppressed groups, then you probably have before you a person who knows less than the most narrowly focused business-school graduate. So much academic garbage passes itself off as liberal education these days that all of us have to be careful. So, what should you ask before hiring a liberal arts graduate? Here's a list: •Can you write clearly and persuasively? Can I know exactly what's on your mind through the medium of a piece of paper and will I take it seriously? •Have you worked in the business world? I would not put graduates with business-related courses above the ones who worked for a business in the summer. Interest verified by experience is 10 times better than a course in accounting and 50 times better than a course on "The Image of the Businessman in Modern Drama." • Can you work cooperatively? Since a good part of liberal education is very introspective and solitaryand cooperative work on exams and term papers is usually, rightly, frowned on- look for some evidence of sociability. Did the applicant, for example, go through four years taking notes in large lecture classes or did he put himself into the give and take of conversation in small seminar classes? And, though independence is hardly a vice, make sure the person knows that working for someone, not just with someone, is expected every day. This is sometimes a hard lesson for liberal arts graduates to learn. • What do you think about this job as a career? The last thing you need is a graduate whose philosophy has taught him that he is noble and businessmen are corrupt. If the graduate has been indoctrinated with the notion that the world of business and industry is a species of ugly materialism, vulgar commercialism or the work of social elements only one step above the criminal class, he is of no use. Let him stay in the academy. • What did you study and what did you learn? Not all liberal education is great or even good. Did the candidate before you study broadly and widely in major fields covering important topics or was he narrowly trained? A course on rape and rebellion in contemporary poetry is no substitute for a course on Dante or a seminar in calculus. Did he read books? Good books? Did he take these books seriously? Do not be afraid to ask these questions! Finally, see if the applicant's education had an effect on his character. Did four years of college make him thoughtful, inquisitive, brave and serious? Or just haughty, pedantic, smug and vain? Pursue these questions, for they not only will make businesses happier but might even do something to improve liberal education in this country. S prin g 1 99 3 L ET T E R S f r o m S a nt a F e NOT ALL LIBERAL EDUCATION IS GREAT OR EVEN GOOD. . . A COURSE ON RAPE AND REBELLION IN CONTEMPORARY POETRY IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR A COURSE ON DANTE OR A SEMINAR IN CALCULUS. This article originally appeared in the Wall Street Journal, April 23, 1991. page th i rt ee n �JUST SAY NO TO COLLEGE by Aram Bakshlan, Jr. From ele mentary school onward, I had always learned more from independent reading and conversation than from the standard gruel dispensed in class, taking to heart the Shakespearean admonition that No profit grows where is no pleasure ·~ I ANTICIPATING NANCY REAGAN BY TWENTY YEARS, I "JUST SAID NO " - IN MY CASE, TO THAT MOST MINO-BENDING OF HALLUCINOGENS, A SECOND-RATE LIBERAL ARTS DEGREE. pa ge f o urt ee n Few things in life are worth standing in line for, especially on a sweltering summe r d ay in Washington, D. C. Higher education certainly didn't seem like one of them in September of 1963, when, overcome by the dinginess of George Washington University 's d owntown campus, and the industrial-s treng th effluv ium issuing from long queues of nervous, sweaty registering fre s hme n , I made what may well have been the d efining choice of m y life. A n ticipa ting N a ncy Reagan b y twen ty years, I "just said no"- in my case, to that most mind-bending of hallucinogens, a second-rate liberal arts degree. It meant chucking a ge n e r o u s ly ap p o rtio n e d yet u n appetizin g acad emic sch ola rship, but my mind was mad e up: rather th an go to college, I would get an education. More immediately, I decided to abandon campus and walk a few blocks to the old Circle Theatre on Pennsylvania Avenue. By h appy chance, Lucino Visconti's exquisite film a d a p ta tion of G iuseppe di Lampedusa's The Leopard was playing and the erratic air conditioning system was working that afternoon; two a u s p iciou s om ens in a row convinced me that I had made the righ t decision. As I watch ed th e world-weary patrician hero turning h is b ack o n the g ilded s h a m of risorgimento Italy, I felt a smug kinship, excusable, perhaps, for one still in his teens. a nd a greeing w ith Sydne y Smith (to the aggravation of numerable famil y members over the years) that there is "no furniture so charming as books." So much so that, from junior high school onward, I regularly played hooky to visit the vast, dusty secondhand bookstores that still dotted the Washington landscape in the 1950s and 1960s. Nearly all of them, Lowdermilk's, Pearlman's, Estate, Savile, and Park Books, are gone now. Tod ay's book fanciers, usually forced to choose between ov erpriced antiqua rian dealers and chain retailers limited to standard current titles, w ould be amazed at how far-and wide-a few dollars could go in those literary old curiosity shops. Nicely bound broken sets of the collected works of Volta ire could be bought for all of seventyfi ve cents a volume and Hom er, Plato, Thu cyd id es, Xen ophon, Le Sage, Cla rendon , Cervan tes, M arcu s Aurelius, G ibbon , M acaulay , Carly le, Thackeray, Dickens, Sterne, Smollett, Daudet, de Maupassant, Surtees, Suetonius, Sherid an, Aristophanes, Chau cer, Emerson, Parkman, Pascal, Moliere, Madame de Sevign e, Saint-Simon, P e pys, Pope, Joh n son, Bos well, Monta ign e, Dry den, Goldsm ith, Goethe, Byron, Tennyson, Kipling, de Ligne, Luther, and Dante, not to mention more recent a nd rou tine titles, could b e h ad for a son g, L ET TE R S f r o m S a nta Fe Sp r ing 19 93 ta'en ; In brief, sir, study what you most affect .... �sometimes in morocco or calf. "Good as it is to inherit a library, it is better to collect one." wrote Augustine Birrell, and at that time, even a newspaper carrier turned copyboy like myself could afford to start. The very act of working to pay for each volume seemed to quicken one's appetite for reading it, a principle that probably applies to students who have to work for their tuition. Serving as a copyboy, first at the (now-defunct) National Observer and then at the (now-unrecognizable) U.S. News & World Report, also meant access to good reference libraries and interesting conversation with the less stuffy writers and editors. One of the earliest pleasures of my own writing career came when, a few years after I had left the National Observer, I appeared in its pages as a book critic and was able to renew earlier acquaintances on a more equal footing. Reading, writing, and intelligent discussion are the keys to a good liberal arts education in academia; I simply sought, and was lucky enough to find, the same essentials in the outside world without being subjected to the nuisance of gym, the irrelevance of Geology I, and the forced purchase of dozens of badly written textbooks, as expensive as they were worthless. This is not to say that I owe nothing to formal education. Several inspiring elementary and secondary school teachers tolerated my maverick streak and encouraged my interests in history and literature. As a day student at a cozy if somewhat down-at-the heels little academy called Woodward Prep, I even learned the elements of real, as opposed to apparent, political power: Control communications and law enforcement and it doesn't matter who is president. Editing the school newspaper and literary supplement and commanding the hall monitors meant real power and real rewards: Extensive writing on the topics of one's choosing, more free time and fewer scheduled classes, and the ability to slip out for an illicit beer (I was tall for my age) with the connivance of one's subordinate hall monitors. At the same time, a curriculum that still included Latin meant an early grounding in the fundamental structure of languages that would make later acquisition of rudimentary French and German easier. How Latin came to be dropped by some high schools as "irrelevant" baffles me to this day; it is the most practical subject many secondary school students will ever study. Given a little Latin, years later you will be able to get the gist of street signs, simple news clips, and broadcasts in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and, in a pinch, even Romanian. Unlike the author of a recent bestseller, I do not claim that everything I needed to know I had already learned in kindergarten. But I can honestly say that everything I needed to learn-in school, that is-I knew by the twelfth grade. While my own curiosity deserves some of the credit, so does a motley but worthy crew of teachers, not one of whom was an education major. They included a deaf, dentured retired colonel, Merritt Booth, who taught algebra and geometry with the logic and precision they deserved; a dedicated young English teacher named Bill Gaull who, while working his way through law school, took the trouble Spring 1993 LETTERS from Santa Fe to encourage bright students to read non-syllabus authors like Fielding and Tolstoy; a one-legged Seventh Day Adventist history master named Donald F. Haynes who, although somewhere to the right of the John Birch Society, graded fairly and taught passionately; and a wonderful 76-year-old chemistry teacher, "Doc" Valaer, whose enthusiasm for his subject was such that, although a teetotaler, he had written a book entitled Wines of the World, painstakingly analyzing their chemical compositions without tasting any of them. My graduate and post-graduate teachers, while more famous, have all been untenured and unofficial: editors, authors, politicians, journalists, artists, and a widening circle of interesting friends. The odds are that I would have missed out on most of these opportunities if I had kept my scholarship and followed the off-trodden rut of academia, where as early an observer as William Penn remarked that "much reading is an oppression of the mind, and extinguishes the natural candle, which is the reason of so many useless scholars in the world." At the very worst, I might have ended up as a tenured, politically correct hack. Fortunately, all I had to do was just say no. From The American Spectator, September, 1991. pa ge fift e en �PROFILE St. John's College: An independent, non-sectarian, four-year liberal arts college. Founded: Established in 1696 in Annapolis, Maryland, as King William's School and chartered in 1784 as St. John's College. Great Books Program adopted 1937. Second campus in Santa Fe opened in 1964. Curriculum: An integrated, four-year, all-required liberal arts and science program based on reading and discussing, in loosely chronological order, the great books of Western civilization. The program requires four years of foreign language, four years of mathematics, three years of laboratory science, and one year of music. Approach: Tutorials, laboratories, and seminars requiring intense participation replace more traditional lectures. Classes are very small. Student/Faculty ratio is 8:1. Degrees Granted: Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Arts. Master of Arts in Liberal Studies. Student Body: Enrollment is limited to about 400 students on each campus. Current freshman class made up of 55% men and 45% women, from 30 states and several foreign countries. Sixty-five percent receive financial aid. Students may transfer between the Santa Fe and Annapolis campuses. Alumni Careers: Education - 21 %, Business - 20%, Law - 10%, Visual and Performing Arts - 9%, Medicine - 7%, Science and Engineering - 7%, Computer Science - 6%, Writing and Publishing - 5%. Graduate Institute: The Graduate Institute in Liberal Education is an interdisciplinary master's degree program based on the same principles as the undergraduate program. Offered on both campuses year-round. Readers of the newsletter may be especially interested in applying for our summer session. For more information please contact the Graduate Institute in Santa Fe (505) 982-3691 ext. 249 or in Annapolis (301) 263 - 2371. LETTERS from Santa Fe St. John's College 1160 Camino Cruz Blanca Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501-4599 ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED U.S. Postage PAID Non-Profit Organization Permit No. 231 Santa Fe, NM � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe Description An account of the resource A newsletter published by the Santa Fe President's Office that includes articles about liberal education. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource St. John's College Meem Library Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Original Format The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data paper Page numeration Number of pages in the original item. 16 pages Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Letters from Santa Fe, Spring 1993 Description An account of the resource Letters from Santa Fe, St. John’s College—Santa Fe, New Mexico, Spring 1993 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Agresto, John Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available St. John’s College Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant Santa Fe, NM Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1993 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource St. John's College owns the rights to this publication. Type The nature or genre of the resource text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource pdf Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Newman, John Henry, 1801-1890 Verkuil, Paul R. Keohane, Nannerl O., 1940- Benoliel, Peter A. Bakshian, Aram Language A language of the resource English Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context Letters_from_SF_1993_Spring Presidents