Et Tu, History Department?

History 10a, “Western Societies, Politics, and Cultures: From Antiquity to 1650,” may find itself relegated to the history books if some History Department faculty members have their way. We hope they do not.

With imminent changes to history concentration requirements, the deep-rooted course’s future is in doubt. According to several professors in the department, there is not enough support or interest among faculty members to push for saving the course. In its place, the department aims to mandate “long ago” and “far away” courses. There is evidently nothing foundational a history concentrator ought to know—or at least, that’s the message the department would be sending by killing History 10a.

A lack of desire among professors to teach History 10a is an inappropriate reason to eliminate the course, if not a slightly alarming one. To operate under such a system—one in which courses are offered based on the fancies of the faculty—is to set a dangerous precedent. Inevitably, there will always be courses that are less interesting to teach than others; for obvious reasons, many faculty members prefer to teach courses in their niches. But these preferences do not excuse curricular holes in educating students broadly and with necessary foundational knowledge.

History 10a aims to be “a survey of Mediterranean and West European societies from Greco-Roman antiquity to the Scientific Revolution.” Most students entering the College have had little formal exposure to such comprehensive material—and many want such an exposure. According to the CUE Guide, of the 143 students who enrolled in History 10a last year, 93 of them chose to take it to fulfill a Core requirement or as an elective. This alone should merit the continued staffing of the course; when one considers the vital importance of providing history concentrators themselves with this basic knowledge the case is even more compelling.

History 10a serves students in a way that narrowly focused history courses cannot. Despite the inclinations of some in the academy, there is merit to teaching courses that have not sprung forth from doctoral dissertations or that will not result in senior theses. Not every course must deeply probe narrow topics; sometimes the information—the facts themselves—can carry the day. Broad survey courses ask questions that help students connect the dots of otherwise loosely connected material.

History 10a should continue to be taught and continue to be required of history concentrators. The History Department may decide to establish a proficiency test of some form in order to excuse the few students who already possess the background the course provides, but for most concentrators, taking the course is a necessity.

Moreover, if History 10a is failing to meet its worthy mission of providing history concentrators with a background—a “how we got here” narrative—rather then drop the course altogether, the History Department should seek pedagogical improvements to its teaching. Perhaps it might consider extending the course over a full year or instituting “flavored” sections, in which subjects in the course are more deeply pursued. Finally, if tenured faculty cannot be found to satisfy the demand and need for such a course with enthusiasm, there is no shame in turning to hiring lecturers who are genuinely interested in providing this type of broad introduction to western civilization.