What role should America play in a new, post-Sept. 11 curriculum?

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 has turned some heads in publicly posing this question as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences gears up for its most ambitious undergraduate curricular review since the 1970s.

Lewis’ musings come early—Dean of the Faculty William C. Kirby has not yet sent the letter to faculty in which he will announce the start of the review—and the College dean’s office, charged with coordinating undergraduate student life, has traditionally been silent on most academic issues.

While Kirby and University President Lawrence H. Summers have stated their desire to bolster the College’s international ties by increasing study abroad opportunities and expanding international studies, Lewis has raised questions about the status of America and Western civilization in the undergraduate curriculum.

Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield ’53 says Lewis’ point—raised in a Crimson op-ed on Sept. 11 and in a Morning Prayers speech last Monday—is on target.

“If multiculturalism says all cultures are equal, that idea took a heavy blow when the World Trade towers came down,” Mansfield says.

Others say Sept. 11 underscores the need to look past America.

“It seems to me the lessons of 9/11 are that Harvard is an international university and we need to focus on the cultures of the rest of the world,” says Pippa Norris, a lecturer on government.

Yet other faculty members and administrators say they do not see a conflict between Lewis’ remarks and a more international vision for the College.

“Any good university is going to ask these questions,” says Professor of Psychology Marc D. Hauser, who speculates that adding a class on America’s changing role in the world “is one of the many changes that could occur.”

Lewis says his questions are open-ended and he does not have any concrete proposals in mind. He declined to elaborate on his views for this story, saying he prefers to let his op-ed and speech stand for themselves.

Protecting ‘Free Society’

In an opinion piece published in The Crimson on Sept. 11, 2002, Lewis first asked the provocative question: “Is Harvard an American or a global university?”

“Since Sept. 11, there has been an unprecedented recollection of this country’s founding principles of freedom and equality,” Lewis wrote. “How will the Harvard Faculty balance the reality that the U.S. is one nation among many in an ever smaller and more interconnected world, with a recognition that the particular ‘free society’ in which Harvard exists is founded on ideals which Americans continue to be proud to defend and preserve?”

Lewis touched on the same themes in a speech last Monday at Memorial Church’s Morning Prayers.

Harvard relies on America’s “fundamental values of freedom and equality,” Lewis said in his speech.

“It seems to me that in this free society, we should want to teach young minds how to learn, but also to inspire their souls to grasp and to sustain the best humane ideals that our shared heritage has given us,” Lewis said.

Lewis has noted that the last two major curricular reviews have moved in somewhat different directions on the issue of America’s place in the world.

Changes made after World War II were based on ideas laid out in the Faculty-produced book, General Education in a Free Society, known as the “Red Book,” Lewis said.

“The basic premise,” Lewis wrote in The Crimson, “was that civilization had almost been extinguished, and it was a responsibility of American higher education to ensure that the students it was educating would not let the same thing happen again.”

At Morning Prayers, Lewis called the book “mainly Western in perspective” but “not jingoistic” and “not even about teaching patriotism.” He said the book instilled a sense of respect for the ideal of freedom.

Lewis contrasted the Core Curriculum—introduced in the 1970s in part to introduce students to other cultures—with the Red Book, saying the Core “had no particular motivating philosophy” other than to cultivate the importance of learning in general.

A Different Perspective

Lewis’ introduction of American values into a debate that has hardly begun contrasts sharply with the themes emphasized by Summers and Kirby.

“A century ago, Harvard was becoming a national university. Today, while strongly rooted in American traditions and values, it is becoming a global university,” Summers said last year in his installation address. “Our goal will be to extend excellence without ever diluting it.”

Kirby, a scholar of modern Chinese history, has made international studies one of his top priorities. After co-authoring a report last year recommending that undergraduate study abroad be reformed and expanded, Kirby’s first major move as dean this summer was to place the Study Abroad Office directly under the jurisdiction of the dean of undergraduate education.

Kirby did not respond to requests for comment this week.

Though Lewis has no formal role as dean of the College to play in the upcoming curricular review and generally defers to the dean of the Faculty on academic matters, he has in the past spoken out on certain Faculty-wide issues.

He has been vocal, for example, on the issue of improving advising for undergraduates, often castigating some of the larger departments for their poor ratings from students.

On the issue of grade inflation, Lewis engaged in a protracted debate with Mansfield over the sources of higher grades.

Colleagues say that compared to past deans of the College, Lewis enjoys an unusual amount of influence among faculty because of his reputation as an academic.

Lewis, who sits on the Educational Policy Committee and the Core Standing Committee, was a tenured computer science professor long before he became dean.

“The previous deans...were highly respected by the Faculty, but coming up through the administrative route you just don’t have the same oomph,” says former Lowell House Master William H. Bossert ’59.

—Staff writer William M. Rasmussen can be reached at wrasmuss@fas.harvard.edu.