Political Correctness and the curriculum

This is from an essay by Thomas Short, entitled, "Diversity" and "Breaking the Disciplines":Two New Assaults on the Curriculum" published in academic Questions I (Summer 1988).

"In the sixties increased enrollment of black students combined with the influence of radical ideas led to the creation of a self-ghettoizing cadre demanding curricular changes in the name of racial justice. Black studies seemed a small exception to the principle that the curriculum should not be determined by political objectives; but before we knew it, feminism was also establishing its claim as a part of the curriculum, and then to all of it. Both proceed on the basis of an enormously damaging lie, namely, that the traditional curriculum "excludes" blacks and women. The legitimate attempt to correct omissions and bias was radicalized into the dogmatic assertion that every part of the curriculum not explicitly devoted to correcting social injustice implicitly defends a racist and sexist status quo. As a result, a new educational principle has become established: in place of the old idea that academic freedom is based on disciplinary competence and entails a responsibility to exclude extraneous political matters from the classroom, we are now told that all education is political and that one can do no better than propound a liberating ideology in each and every course."

The problem with this argument is the simple factual error in the middle of it, namely, that the statement that the traditional curriculum excluded blacks and woman (and, while we're on the subject, pretty much all other minorities) is a lie.

One could argue that race, ethnicity, and gender, should not figure into the study of science or math or engineering (although paying attention to the contributions of non-white males along with white males makes sense). In the social sciences and history and literature, however, the traditional canon or curriculum systematically excluded non-white male points of view, with a few exceptions.

Mr. Short also takes the time to criticize minority studies programs.

"Two reasons are also given for minority studies. One is that they are needed for minority students, and the other is that they are needed for "majority" students. Both arguments proceed from the same underlying assumption, that the traditional liberal arts curriculum represents the culture of "majority," a culture that is an alternative to the ethnic cultures of the black Americans, Chicanos, etc."

Actually I can think of a third reason for minority studies. The study of minority cultures has rewards that extend beyond any supposed social benefit such studies might provide, in much the same way that advanced physics research provides rewards beyond simple technological process. In both cases they are the essential attempt to understand the world with which we are surrounded.

But Mr. Short's arguments seem more geared towards arguing for the existence of required (usually Freshmen) courses in cultural or minority studies, rather than arguing for or against the existence of minority studies programs. Which is not the same thing, and is more debatable. But that debate also moves us into the whole realm of what do we want to require our college students to know. Consider this question, asked by all sorts of students, white or black. "Why do I have to waste my time studying this stupid history (or calculus, or Shakespeare or chemistry)?" Tough question to answer, and not one to get into at the end of this little article, so I leave it to you the reader.