Addressing a standing-room only crowd in the Kennedy Auditorium, Professor of History Bob Paquette stated that, back in the 1950s, The New York Times published an article that favorably described Hamilton’s liberal arts curriculum and asked the following: “what basic musts . . . must a college give its students for effective living for the next 50 years?” Or, in other words, what are the important elements of a liberal arts education? It was that question – old, but certainly still relevant – that defined the upcoming panel discussion, which featured conservative commentators Adam Kissel, James Piereson, and Roger Kimball.
Ted Eismeier, the moderator of the controversial event, jumpstarted the discussion with a prompt: “Is there a crisis of purpose (in liberal arts education) and, in your view, what is that purpose?”
Kimball replied that “the purpose is to make educated people.” A liberal arts curriculum, he explained, should be an ongoing conversation between the student and the great “repository of knowledge,” which he described as the many great works of antiquity (such as the musings of Plato and Aristotle). Additionally, he thought higher education should be “conservative” – that is, it should aim to conserve and promote the “best” philosophical works, which have stood the test of time.
Responding to whether there is a crisis of purpose, Piereson equivocally stated “yes and no.” There was once a consensus in what students should study, he said, but this consensus no longer exists, having been “destroyed by a series of forces.” The first force is specialization. Piereson explained that professors’ areas of academic expertise are often too specialized; as such, they cannot effectively broaden a curriculum. The second force is vocationalism, wherein academics become less about education for education’s sake and more about working toward an occupation. The third force is ideology – or, as Piereson described – a lack of “unity of knowledge.”
Kissel agreed with Kimball and Piereson. He thought the purpose of a liberal arts education should be developing “the powers of the mind.” These powers included taking in information (“seeing and hearing well”), processing and understanding that information, and finally expressing that information. A significant way to improve these powers, Kissel elaborated, is by studying people who have developed them well. Again, the great classical works come into play.
Eismeier then asked what the panelists thought about open curricula in the liberal arts – for example, the curriculum instituted at Hamilton.
Piereson reiterated his opinion that the liberal arts are “the education of what makes life worth living.” But he expressed concern that “we’ve confused liberalism for liberal arts.” He believed that structural issues in higher education have been addressed “by the way we resolve political problems: by letting everyone choose.” And while an open curriculum allows us to easily solve disputes, Piereson thought that, by not having requirements, students were ultimately shortchanged.
Kissel agreed and went on to describe the difference between the “consumer model” of education and the “client model.” In the former, a student controls her academic trajectory almost completely and can simply move on from a subject if she doesn’t like it; think of a consumer picking and choosing foods from the supermarket, he said. In the latter model, the student works the educational system by getting it to work for him; in effect, he is the system’s “client” and allows the system to guide him. Kissel believed that the client model – the “closed” curriculum – was the better one. By mandating some subjects (like history and philosophy, for example), students are more likely to encounter ideas that challenge their core beliefs. In an open curriculum, students might simply cater their course load toward their natural strengths.
Another question asked during the panel discussion was the place and function of free speech on a college campus. The consensus among the panelists was that offensive speech was better fought with more speech (as opposed to involving the administration) and that “if you’re a little offended, that’s okay.” Additionally, Piereson stated that he was “not a fan of hate speech code, but a fan of manners.”
Following the panel discussion, there was a lively question-and-answer segment in which it was clear that many members of the audience strongly disagreed with the panelists’ attitudes and beliefs. However, despite the clash of ideologies, the event ended with a round of applause, perhaps reaffirming Eismeier’s sentiment at the beginning of the lecture that Hamilton students value intellectual diversity – and manners.
Ted Eismeier, the moderator of the controversial event, jumpstarted the discussion with a prompt: “Is there a crisis of purpose (in liberal arts education) and, in your view, what is that purpose?”
Kimball replied that “the purpose is to make educated people.” A liberal arts curriculum, he explained, should be an ongoing conversation between the student and the great “repository of knowledge,” which he described as the many great works of antiquity (such as the musings of Plato and Aristotle). Additionally, he thought higher education should be “conservative” – that is, it should aim to conserve and promote the “best” philosophical works, which have stood the test of time.
Responding to whether there is a crisis of purpose, Piereson equivocally stated “yes and no.” There was once a consensus in what students should study, he said, but this consensus no longer exists, having been “destroyed by a series of forces.” The first force is specialization. Piereson explained that professors’ areas of academic expertise are often too specialized; as such, they cannot effectively broaden a curriculum. The second force is vocationalism, wherein academics become less about education for education’s sake and more about working toward an occupation. The third force is ideology – or, as Piereson described – a lack of “unity of knowledge.”
Kissel agreed with Kimball and Piereson. He thought the purpose of a liberal arts education should be developing “the powers of the mind.” These powers included taking in information (“seeing and hearing well”), processing and understanding that information, and finally expressing that information. A significant way to improve these powers, Kissel elaborated, is by studying people who have developed them well. Again, the great classical works come into play.
Eismeier then asked what the panelists thought about open curricula in the liberal arts – for example, the curriculum instituted at Hamilton.
Piereson reiterated his opinion that the liberal arts are “the education of what makes life worth living.” But he expressed concern that “we’ve confused liberalism for liberal arts.” He believed that structural issues in higher education have been addressed “by the way we resolve political problems: by letting everyone choose.” And while an open curriculum allows us to easily solve disputes, Piereson thought that, by not having requirements, students were ultimately shortchanged.
Kissel agreed and went on to describe the difference between the “consumer model” of education and the “client model.” In the former, a student controls her academic trajectory almost completely and can simply move on from a subject if she doesn’t like it; think of a consumer picking and choosing foods from the supermarket, he said. In the latter model, the student works the educational system by getting it to work for him; in effect, he is the system’s “client” and allows the system to guide him. Kissel believed that the client model – the “closed” curriculum – was the better one. By mandating some subjects (like history and philosophy, for example), students are more likely to encounter ideas that challenge their core beliefs. In an open curriculum, students might simply cater their course load toward their natural strengths.
Another question asked during the panel discussion was the place and function of free speech on a college campus. The consensus among the panelists was that offensive speech was better fought with more speech (as opposed to involving the administration) and that “if you’re a little offended, that’s okay.” Additionally, Piereson stated that he was “not a fan of hate speech code, but a fan of manners.”
Following the panel discussion, there was a lively question-and-answer segment in which it was clear that many members of the audience strongly disagreed with the panelists’ attitudes and beliefs. However, despite the clash of ideologies, the event ended with a round of applause, perhaps reaffirming Eismeier’s sentiment at the beginning of the lecture that Hamilton students value intellectual diversity – and manners.
