Many cultural critics of today conveniently forget that it is the very heritage of the European enlightenment and free-market capitalism that has enabled the voices of women, of gays and lesbians, and of other oppressed peoples to finally be heard.

Harvard's women studies department does indeed introduce its students to a wide range of theories on gender difference. But by de-emphaisizing and wholly dismissing as a patriarchal fiction anything "natural" or "biological," they misplace the proper emphasis. Most scientific research reveals that biology influences gender roles to a rather large degree. It's not a politically correct conclusion, but it's the one that most aligns with the world we know and perceive. If, on the other hand, gender is mostly a social construction, it is hard to find a legal basis for any law that recognizes women as women, such as abortion choice, Family and Medical Leave, deferment from the draft and even affirmative action policies.

To be sure, Women's Studies at Harvard is not as radical as it could be. I'm thankful that the classically liberal project of gender equity seems still a goal. Still, I believe that a more rigorous, fair and beneficial program to study sex and gender would be structured as follows: require students to take a half-course in basic human philosophy. Then expose them to the anthropological study of sex differences among different cultures and the psychological differences between men and women. Survey the broad swath of literature and art which deal with masculinity, femininity and sexuality. Save the theory for the icing on the cake. And don't take it too seriously.

A cursory reading of ancient poetry can accomplish what a headache inducing romp through Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Judith Butler cannot; an appreciation of the wonderful cornucopia of sexual relations from time immemorial and how sexuality was (and is) linked with spirituality, nature, power, and politics.

Higher education is supposed to have a liberalizing effect on its students, and I don't object to the a dash of cultural criticism in established humanities disciplines. But if Harvard has any intention to truly produce those who will form the discourse of tomorrow, narrow-minded theologies of the radical left ought not be the primary means of pedagogy.

Marc J. Ambinder '01, a Crimson editor, is a history concentrator in Lowell House.