Contact Information
The Spectator
Face off: Moderate musings on the "Crisis of Purpose in Liberal Arts" Panel
by Allison Eck '12 &Patrick Landers '12
Opinion Editor & Opinion Writer
October 30, 2009
AE: Although I did find that I was in agreement with some of what the panelists said, I also thought they were too reliant on certain Western writers. For example, they repeatedly tossed around names like John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Benjamin Franklin and Plato. Their negligence when it came to mentioning the great works of other cultures frustrated me. In response to an audience member's question, Pierson did acknowledge that people like W.E.B DuBois and Martin Luther King, Jr. should be on the list of "Great Books," but the fact that they didn't think to cite these writers in the panel portion of the discussion clearly shows that they put white male authors on a pedestal. It bothered me that these men were constantly quoting other people -- they put so much emphasis on deduction and individual thought, and yet they can't seem to express themselves without falling back on people like Descartes. So do they have the right to dictate what questions we should be asking if they are just borrowing their ideas from members of antiquity?
PL: There is value to studying "Great Books," but it was clear that what the speakers had in mind was a narrow view of Western texts. I would argue that the term "Great Books" is partially a relevant term, based on what "Great Books of..." you're looking for. For example, I would think the most valuable texts for the study of literature could be found across many cultures and civilizations. However, maybe when it comes to political, social and economic theory, a greater emphasis on Western writers is called for since we see their ideas reflected in today's world. For better or worse, the last few hundred years of human history has been dominated by the West, partially because Western ideas on these topics have been so powerful. However, that doesn't mean that there aren't lessons to be learned from non-Western thinkers on these subjects and others.
AE: I agree, and I do think that one of the questions raised at the end of the panel discussion was unjustified in that sense. The question was in reference to something Kimbel had said in a different setting regarding the "value" of one culture over another. Like it or not, some cultures have contributed more to society -- their inventions and ideas have fostered more progress, and their people are more recognized in the intellectual sphere. So yes, Western ideas have more weight in some academic arenas, even if they have equal worth overall. However, my problem with these panelists was exactly what you said -- the fact that they defined "Great Books" to be political, social, and economic theory. Their concept of a liberal arts education seems to be unbalanced. They asserted that the main goal of a liberal arts education is to teach us about virtue and justice -- in short, how to live our lives. But most of the seven original "liberal arts" had nothing to do with ethics! Where do the studies of music and science, for example, fall? My main problem is that even though their definition of "Great Books" is acceptable when put in a certain context, they failed to mention many other important aspects of a liberal arts education that have very little to do with political or social theory but that have a solid (and just as reputable) foundation in non-Western cultures.
PL: I totally agree with you that they had a narrow definition of a liberal arts education, which maybe was just a false impression due to the limitations of time. While James Piereson and Adam Kissel emphasized ideas like "How do we live our lives?" and virtue, I expect Kimball would stand up for the value of music since he's an art critic. My personal understanding of a liberal arts program is that it teaches you how to think. Unlike professional programs, which prepare you with skills and knowledge for a given field, a liberal arts college should expose you to a variety of disciplines, methodologies, perspectives and ideas. Through this study you hopefully realize the varied applicability, strengths and weakensses of different ways of thinking and how to apply them in your personal, social and professional life.
I wonder what you thought about their discussion of the open curriculum? As much as I enjoy taking only courses I want in fields I prefer, I wonder if I'd be better off if forced to take several courses outside of my personal tastes. I'm not a saint when it comes to taking a variety of courses across varied fields, but I know I'm not the worst. However, I chose Hamilton partially because I could take what I want. I think maybe the solution is some very minimal requirements that would introduce students to several diverse disciplines and perspectives. One point that I think all students can agree on is that Hamilton needs a stronger advising system. That would hopefully achieve the desired outcome of a true liberal arts program without the rigidity and excessive requirement of a core curriculum. Especially with a strong, well-informed advisor to serve as a guide.
AE: I agree completely on that note. My problem with the open curriculum is that even though we have some requirements, the administration is softening its policy toward them. For example, the new Quantitative Symbolic Reasoning (QSR) requirement will be very easy to satisfy, given that it will encompass at least half of the the College's departments. I also think students sometimes abuse the open curriculum by enrolling in a limited course selection. There is something to be said about a well-rounded education, even if it means taking a calculus class when math isn't your strong suit, or an English class if reading isn't something you particularly enjoy. The great thing about the open curriculum is that I can take a class because I really want to, but again, I think part of a liberal arts education is immersing oneself in a variety of topics. Hamilton needs its students to accomplish this goal without detracting from their ability to double major or take electives. And I think you're right, the advising system comes into play here. An adivsor should be able to help a student decide what courses (beyond those listed under her major requirements) might be useful in the long run.
Speaking of advisors, the panelists basically implied that we learn from the books we read. This is undoubtedly true, but it makes me wonder why they are so adamantly against professors divulging their opinions in class. If books are our teachers, and we are supposed to evaluate the validity of the opinions contained in them, then why can't our professors tell us how they feel? I almost always welcome my professor's opinions because I think doing so indicates a certain degree of respect that we have for each other. It's almost insulting to me when professors refrain from being completely honest with their students. Do you think Hamilton faculty should make an effort to wait until the semester is over to reveal anything too personal?
PL: Honestly I'm of two minds on this issue. First of all, it's probably impossible for a professor to entirely keep his personal thoughts completely outside of the classroom. When professors bring their personal opinions into a class, they should make it clear that it's their opinion and then be sure that students aren't negatively affected if they disagree with those opinions. I think most professors at Hamilton practice this approach. It's certainly a sign of respect when professors voice their thoughts and encourage students to do likewise. However, I feel that courses should include critiques or alternative ideas on the issues discussed, and some of my classes have failed in that department. That is when I think the professor's opinions have exerted too much influence on the class.
AE: True! Maybe in those unfortunate circumstances, it should be up to the more impressionable students to remember to keep an open mind. Ideally, professors should present both multiple sides to a topic, but seeing as this won't happen overnight, we should do our best to allow as much communication as possible without being unreasonable.