To the editors:



In discussing the report of the task force on general education with a Crimson reporter the other day, I failed to make my view clear enough. I am quite sorry that as a result, the Crimson story (“Professors Say this Core is Solid,” news, Oct. 10) leaves the impression that I am in some way critical of the course Historical Study B-11: “The Crusades” or of its place in the proposed curriculum. This is particularly regrettable because my intent was quite the opposite. This course has been an important part of the core curriculum in Historical Studies for over two decades, and I expect it will continue to be part of any future general education curriculum. The points I did not properly make are that a wide range of historical courses ought to have a secure home in the curriculum, and to that end, it will be important to articulate a broader rationale for making study of the past part of general education. In discussion with members of the task force and other colleagues, I hope to offer such a rationale in the coming weeks.



ANDREW D. GORDON

Cambridge, Mass.

October 18, 2006



The writer is Folger Fund Professor of History and chair of the history department.