Constructing Historical Walls

THE ULTIMATE INSULT to a historian is to accuse him of keeping his gaze focused entirely on the past, of having no concern for the present and future. The recently proposed revision of the sophomore tutorial program in History, if implemented, will be a giant step backwards into a past we have grown to regret--a past in which the history of an entire hemisphere was ignored in favor of our own, a past in which progressive universities were reviewed by Senate committees for daring to teach "dangerous" communist theory, and a past which still evokes shock among students schooled only by conventional high school history texts.

The revision process seemed to begin on a positive note. A faculty committee, which included graduate student tutors and undergraduates as non-voting members, decided to switch the tutorial structure from six four-week topics to four six-week topics. The department cited a legitimate fear of superficiality in some areas. However, the proposed list of topics to be covered was composed by a closed faculty committee, and the results seem dangerously short-sighted.

Led by chairman Stephen Ozment, professor of History, the committee decided to eliminate non-Western history as an area of study, arguing that only five of the 27 tutors are trained in non-Western fields.

Ozment says that the department does not believe that tutors can provide useful instruction in areas with which they are unfamiliar. One tutor points out, however, that while it is difficult to teach an unfamiliar topic, there is no reason to assume that non-Western or "Third World" topics are any less familiar to a Medieval historian than the subtleties of Freudian theory--a new topic under the recent proposals.

The department's second argument--that it will require all concentrators to take a half course in at least one non-Western area--also falls short on logic. While the new course requirement is laudable and would effectively complement the current tutorial section on non-Western history, it cannot replace the training that is unique to the smaller tutorial format.

Theoretically, it is in sophomore tutorial that the department introduces historical method. Tutors generally concur that a major challenge in dealing with non-Western problems is the different terminology and the foreign modes of thought to which students must become accustomed. A student without this background would be at a considerable disadvantage in a departmental course on Chinese communism, for instance, and would be more likely to be frustrated by the subject matter.

The "five out of 27" statistic mentioned above will only get worse unless an effort is made to generate an increasing number of scholars in areas on the other side of the iron and bamboo curtains, and south of the Rio Grande. Failing to introduce these unfamiliar fields at an early stage of a student's education will only serve to decrease his interest. And in any case, tutors generally describe the topics less familiar to sophomores as the most intellectually stimulating.

THE PROBLEMS DESCRIBED will be compounded by other proposed changes, such as the planned omission of subtopics on women in nineteenth century America, and Marxist theory. Though not popular among tutors, the "women in history" topic should be left as an alternative for those who wish to teach it. The symbolic gesture of removing the reading list on women from circulation is a very confusing signal from a department that claims to be open-minded.

The elimination of the Marxism unit has provoked a notable amount of dismay from students and tutors alike. It is cited as the most popular topic on the list, and interest in it this year crossed lines of political partisanship. One tutor reports. "One of my most Reaganite students found the section on alienation particularly absorbing." Tutors also say that the opportunities for reading Marx in the original are fairly rare and that this leads to many misinterpretations of his writings in subsequent work.

More than half of the world's population lives by--at least in name--the doctrine of Marxism. A solid understanding of its models and terminology is crucial in dealing with modern historical writing. Ozment stresses that there is "no suppression" going on, but neither he nor the department has provided a satisfactory reason for the change. Ozment adds that the topic has proved too broad for the short time allotted, but most tutors minimize the problem, saying that the new six-week period would be perfectly appropriate for a subject such as Marx.

Tutors can, if they wish, substitute a topic such as Marx for another in their particular class. But under the proposed revisions, the department will remove suggested reading lists for non-required areas from the materials supplied to tutors. Tutors say they enjoy teaching challenging subjects, but in the future, if they must compile a list for topics with which they are unfamiliar, they will be less likely to choose the elective and less likely to present it well.

Despite the History Department's mystifying attitude on this issue, the cause is not lost. Ozment says that the revision will not be officially approved until reading lists for the topics are compiled. In the meantime, tutors and students should be as strident as possible in opposing the changes, and in requesting more representation in future decisions. Perhaps then we will advance the important process of opening sheltered minds to the vistas of non-Western, non-white and non-male history.