I do not in any way deny the validity of studying Aristotle, whose ideas most certainly shaped much of Western culture. Or Shakespeare or Milton or Dante, who wrote some of the most beautiful works in history.
But if you present students with a "Great Books" or "Western Civilization" class which omits modern work and the work of those who are not white or not male, you are hurting students in two ways:
On the one hand you are insulting their intelligence by pretending that these ideas have not been countered in a society where technology has radically changed the economy and led to increasingly stratified social systems.
On the other hand, you are leaving them with only old paths to choose by hiding from them the new thoughts which have been generated in this century.
"Isn't this a little irrelevant," you may ask, "given that Harvard doesn't have a 'Great Books' course?"
But among the many dangers of the Core curriculum--brain-numbing as it is in too many ways--is that it is in many ways a two-semester "Books" course. One half is "Great Books." The second half is "Other Books." Or "non-Great Books."
On the one hand we have Moral Reasoning. This year, for the first time in recent memory, a class will be offered on Confucian thought. Clearly, this is a step in the right direction, given that every other Moral Reasoning course is very white, overwhelmingly male and extremely dead.
And we have Historical Studies, Literature and Arts, Science and Social Analysis. It would be unfair to deny scholars of different cultures their credit for offering non-white, non-male course in these areas, but for the most part, "Western Civ" abounds.
And then there is Foreign Cultures. The second semester. The Other. Foreign. The few courses which are offered in this area each year are the Harvard students' only required exposure to difference.
Although as a general rule I am thoroughly annoyed by requirements, I believe that Harvard must find a way to expose students to more of what is different. Only in this way will students learn that the "Great Books" have modern counterparts and the great thinkers can be nearly eclipsed--certainly equaled--by some of the modern great actors.
Like Harvard's administration and Harvard's faculty, Harvard's requirements are overwhelmingly white and male. In an administration it is annoying. In a faculty it shows a stuffiness, perhaps even prejudice, and more than a hint of the old-boys' network.
But in course offerings it is nothing short of regressive. We might as well take E. D. Hirsch's advice to heart and become "culturally literate." Harvard is challenging us with very little more than that.