History In The Making

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I am writing to correct errors stated in William F. Hammond's editorial piece on the History Department's revision of sophomore tutorial. I should also like to allay any fears and suspicions aroused by the article about the History Department's intentions and goodwill.

After long soul searching the History Department voted a revision of sophomore tutorial that embraced two basic changes: a) the reduction from six to four topics and b) the creation of a new list of topics that are more focused and manageable than the old. To compensate for the removal of a required tutorial unit on a non-western subject, the Department added the requirement of a half course in non-western history (African, Asian, Lajin American, or Near Eastern). In addition, tutors are given the freedom to substitute either an area of their own choosing for one of the present four (pre-1700 European. Modern European, American, and Historiography) or a topic of their own choosing in one of the four areas. This option is designed to permit those with expertise and interest in teaching a non-western topic the right to do so and to encourage all tutors to be more independent in the selection of their topics.

The History Department found it disturbing that in that last four years only 5 of 47 sophomore tutors (not 5 of 2years as the editorial erroneously states) had done a non-western field. I cannot believe, as the Crimson apparently does, that a majority of Harvard undergraduates is willing to pay $10,000 a year to be instructed in subjects on which their teachers are no better informed than they. It was the conviction of all western and non-western historians in the Department that the best solution was to have those knowledgeable in these areas teach them--hence, the half-course requirement in a non-western field.

In the revision of tutorial topics, which was solely in faculty hands save for informal consultation with tutors by the faculty involved, only three of the old topics survived. In their place the following selections are in the process of preparation: Pre-1700 Europe: The Gracchi, the Norman Conquest, and The Peasants' Revolt of 1525: Modern Europe: The French Revolution, Sigmund Freud. The Iran Crisis: America: American Slavery. The Origins of the Cold War, and The American West; Historiography: Positivism and Anti-positivism. Historians and Their Craft.

As for Karl Marx. I expect his views will still be well represented within the tutorial, not only as a free topic for tutors who may wish to devote a full tutorial unit to him, but also within the area of historiography and the pre-1700 topic "The Peasants' War of 1525" (of which I am the author). I also expect women to be well represented within the new list of topics, but as full members of the historical process, not as entities extracted out as if they were foreign objects.

The revision evolved from an original statement drafted by two representatives of the tutors. I think the vast majority of tutors would agree that the interests of graduate students and undergraduates have been will-served by the revision. That a few old tutors may be unhappy about the deletion of a favorite topic is understandable, for inertia is a powerful force in human nature. But we all are subject at times to change and growth.

It is the intention of the History Department that sophomore tutorial be a place where students are introduced to the variety of historical problems and methods in areas where resources permit this to be done in a succinct and satisfying way and under the guidance of teachers who have both professional competence and genuine interest in what they are teaching. Certainly neither the Department nor, I am confident, the vast majority of Harvard undergraduates want the tutorial to become an occasion for ideological indoctrination. If this is what the author is suggesting, then he should be ashamed of himself. Steven Ozment   Head Tutor