I Will Philosophize

Not one to shy from comedy, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals Peter J. Gomes presented much-needed humor to the Faculty during Tuesday’s tense discussion of the Preliminary Report on General Education. There are “fears,” Gomes reported, from “our learned and articulate colleagues in the room,” that the touted—and now defunct—“Reason and Faith” requirement of the new general education would place “Jesuits under beds and priests in every corner” of the College.

Although Gomes stood out for the laughs that he earned, his remarks generally echoed the meeting’s thread of criticism directed at the Preliminary Report’s categories and nomenclature. Philip Fisher, the Reid professor of English and American literature, extended this theme, hypothesizing that vague categories such as the newly proposed group of courses on “human beings” might open general education to “gut courses” that will “embarrass us.”

But beyond the categories, the real source of embarrassment for the future of general education will come if the Preliminary Report’s guiding philosophy continues to be ignored. Rather than debate the viability of teaching future Harvard students how to be good citizens, professors have become engrossed in the intractable dispute of whether or not departments or fields are adequately represented in the proposed new requirements.

Of course, the inclusion or exclusion of “Reason and Faith” and “what it means to be a human being” as requirements in general education greatly affects the new system. But the problem with concentrating on categories and nomenclature is that no matter what titles professors pass, the key to success is strict regulation on how courses fit into those categories; without regulation, the new “Core” will inevitably devolve into its current incarnation, in which courses are included without regard for their content. The entire rationale for the demolition of the Core, however, is to remove the idea from general education that content is of secondary importance to methodology.

The strongest defense that the new general education has to differentiate itself from the Core in the long term is the idea that the new Standing Committee on General Education will be endowed with a clearly defined lens through which to judge potential courses. Unlike the past 30 years of the Standing Committee on the Core, the new committee will theoretically be able to tell professors that their courses’ content does not mesh with Harvard’s guiding philosophy of general education, and they should teach their classes within a department instead. Professors will not be able to simply add a final exam in order to join general education; they will have to tailor their courses to adhere to a new philosophy of contemporary relevance to a normal citizen.

But the Faculty’s most recent discussions, and last week’s alterations to the Preliminary Report by the Task Force on General Education, show an increasing disregard for the guiding philosophy of the new “Core” and an undue focus on how many literature requirements students will face and what specifically those literature requirements will be titled. Yet if the Preliminary Report’s strongly worded philosophy is lost in this endless discussion, the years of work that formed “Literature, Arts, and Ideas” will be spoiled; Foreign Cultures 85, “Japan Pop: From Basho to Banana” will likely trickle through the categorical cracks if professors do not firmly support the philosophy outlined in the Preliminary Report. “Relevance” and “citizenship” are by no means specific in how a new Standing Committee will judge new courses for general education, but they are a start which, if passed, will be elaborated and detailed.

For that reason, we hope that when the Faculty meets again on Jan. 12—soon after the Task Force on General Education delivers its final report—professors vote on its guiding philosophy. If they do not support this focus on citizenship and non-academic relevance, then no matter how the categories are finally outlined, the College will end up with a slightly tweaked Core. The Curricular Review has not lasted four years to tweak the Core; it’s here to fundamentally redefine Harvard’s general education. We hope that professors approve this philosophy, and begin the arduous task of implementing its rule over a much, much different “Core.”