News
Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil
News
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum
News
Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta
News
After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct
News
Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds
To the editors:
In discussing the report of the task force on general education with a Crimson reporter the other day, I failed to make my view clear enough. I am quite sorry that as a result, the Crimson story (“Professors Say this Core is Solid,” news, Oct. 10) leaves the impression that I am in some way critical of the course Historical Study B-11: “The Crusades” or of its place in the proposed curriculum. This is particularly regrettable because my intent was quite the opposite. This course has been an important part of the core curriculum in Historical Studies for over two decades, and I expect it will continue to be part of any future general education curriculum. The points I did not properly make are that a wide range of historical courses ought to have a secure home in the curriculum, and to that end, it will be important to articulate a broader rationale for making study of the past part of general education. In discussion with members of the task force and other colleagues, I hope to offer such a rationale in the coming weeks.
ANDREW D. GORDON
Cambridge, Mass.
October 18, 2006
The writer is Folger Fund Professor of History and chair of the history department.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.