THESISxii
A Philosophical Newsletter
Volume 6 • Number 2
1998
Inside this Issue:
Pat Blackman
NATIVE AMERICANS, MASCOTS, AND RACISM
Cindy Wright
WHITE LIES – RED FLAGS
Christopher Gutt
FRIENDSHIP: A Dialogue
SPECIAL TOPIC
General Education
Joseph J. Weiner
GENERAL EDUCATION AND CONVERGENCE
Katherine Jassen
LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF GENERAL EDUCATION
Gary Burchard and Janice Stefane
GENERAL EDUCATION: A Dialogue
Tracy Fraser
GENERAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Maude Mikulewicz
GENERAL EDUCATION AT MCLA
Native Americans, Mascots, and Racism
Pat Blackman
‡ Americans should work to eliminate the use of Native American mascots, team names, and symbols in sports. Native Americans have testified repeatedly to the negative impact of such images on their communities. They are caricatures based on inherently racist stereotypes and assumptions, and if focused on any other ethnic group, would not be tolerated by most Americans. These images and symbols function as unconscious propaganda and do not honor or ennoble Indians. They operate as part of our racial ideology and they help conceal the continuing genocide of indigenous peoples.
The fact alone that high profile sports events involving teams with names like “Redskins,” “Indians,” and “Braves” attract Native American demonstrations does not necessarily argue for an immediate change in the way we name and represent sports teams. However, it should spur Americans to consider this issue seriously. When a group in our society consistently agitates to raise awareness about a perceived injustice, it behooves society at large to listen and take note. We should not ignore the voice of Native people who continue to call our attention to this issue as part of a greater continuing injustice.
Indeed, when we truly listen, we find the clear cause of their anger. This practice reduces an entire race of people to the level of cartoon caricatures, side by side with “Cowboys” and “Pirates.” One can also view the Indian in American sports as equivalent to an animal, like the lions, tigers, and bison so prevalent among mascots and team names. And as Ward Churchill points out, one need only substitute a pejorative for African-Americans in place of “Redskins,” accompanied by appropriate visual stereotypes for the team icon, to make more clear the true racism involved in this practice (see Churchill, pp. 65-72). Imagine the public reaction to such a team.
But the issue does not stop with racism alone. These images are consistent with hundreds of years of distorted depictions of Native Americans, beginning at least with the earliest American literature. When seen in this light, the Indian is, for example, a dispensable part of the hostile world of nature, or at best a noble savage in need of culture and civilization. This we know, for all Indians have war bonnets and use tomahawks to scalp their enemies.
Perhaps most importantly, these images today convince us that all Indians are gone, things of the past. They effectively erase current Native American struggles to protect their lands and religious traditions, both of which are guaranteed security by the Constitution yet nevertheless are the targets of manifold groups, from huge coal companies to the ‘shamans’ of the New Age movement. Indeed, the depiction of Indians in American sports seems innocuous compared to these greater evils.
But it is precisely the use of such images that helps banish the real problems of Native Americans to invisibility. People who are not real cannot have real problems. Ward Churchill points out that the Nazi Julius Streicher was hung at Nuremburg in 1946, not for killing Jews, but for publishing racist editorials and cartoons which helped create the climate in Germany that allowed genocide (Churchill, pp. 73-87).
In much the same way, racist caricatures in American sports help create the climate that allows the continuing genocide of Native Americans. (A little research will reveal the propriety of the word “genocide.” One might begin with the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” available [online] at http://www.hrweb.org/ legal/genocide.html; see also, Churchill, pp. 11-63.)
Three major objections are often raised together in response to these arguments. Weaker cultures have always been conquered by stronger ones in world history, so we should not concern ourselves with the protests of Native Americans. In addition, the use of Indian names and images in American sports is an honor to Native peoples, not a form of racism. Finally, sports mascots and team names represent big money for many of those involved, and thus we cannot afford to eliminate the offending elements.
The first argument, aphoristic as it might seem, does not address the fact that we all have a choice, here and now, to discontinue this process. To continue racist practices simply because our society has always been the “conqueror” vis a vis Native Americans is a morally untenable position.
The second argument demonstrates an arrogant disregard for the desires of Native Americans. As Glenn T. Morris suggests, one cannot pretend to bestow honors when the “honoree” sees them as insults (Churchill, p. 65).
The final objection is perhaps the most powerful because it appeals to the American wallet. But simply put, economic gain cannot be a justification for the continuation of racist practice. Furthermore, while sports fans no doubt enjoy their teams’ mascots and traditions, it is dubious to suggest they would lose long term interest in their favorite sport or team because of a name change. One goes to a baseball game primarily to watch baseball and have a good time, not specifically to chop the air and dress up like an Indian. But even if this is not the case, the risk of lower income to institutions or sports franchises is justified in achieving the end of this racist practice in American sports, which is so dangerous to Native peoples.
References
Churchill, Ward. Indians Are Us? (Monroe: Common Courage Press, 1994)
Pat Blackman is a student at MCLA
White Lies – Red Flags
Cindy Wright
‡ The quandary facing the country today created by the President’s sexual misconduct has many loyalties divided, and many individuals confused. The President’s evasive elucidation has psychologically affected the country as individuals struggle to understand why lies are suddenly acceptable.
In an attempt to comprehend the seriousness of this issue, one must first ask why someone would place him or herself in such a precarious position. Individuals who believe their lies are justified base their presentation on self-serving venality. The liar views the deception through jaded eyes, believing the lie to be a necessary evil. Ironically, we have learned that many times deceit for personal gain masquerades as patriotic concern.
As political leaders grow accustomed to making such excuses they become apathetic, eventually believing that lying is acceptable, especially when the liar convinces him- or herself that people will be better off in the long run: “Either I lie or this will happen,” is a false dichotomy at best. What begins as one lie escalates into many, and deceptive maneuvers become necessary to keep the corruption from surfacing. Once public servants lose their bearings in this way, all the lame deceptions of today’s Sexgate - the phone calls, the tapes, the elaborate cover-ups, the bribing of witnesses to make them lie, the televised pleas for trust -- become possible.
Claims that others have acted similarly in the past are no consolation. We must guard against tu quoque arguments and casual inferences based upon historical events. If duplicity were allowed in unique cases, the criteria for those situations would have to be publicly debated and collectively chosen. Consequently, we can view the dismissal of inquiries into such practices as the defense of unwarranted power -- power bypassing the consent of the governed.
Accusations surrounding the President’s behavior have been minimized by some, because the economy is doing well, we are not at war, taxes are acceptable, and so on. This red herring is popular. Yet, these hypocritical defenders of the President, who initially campaigned for truth (telling the voters that lying is wrong), change the rules whenever it appears to be in their interest to do so. This implies that those holding political office can override or nullify the vested rights of the people: that public officials can deceive the people for the sake of the people, a self-contradictory practice in a democratic government.
While Sexgate exposes issues dealing with personal conduct, observers agree that deception is present in many everyday decisions in government. For example, public servants may lie to others holding office in an attempt to protect programs they believe important, or to secure secrets they have been told not to disclose. Furthermore, what is to keep members of congress from making deals with one another to vote for measures they would otherwise oppose, then deny having made the quid pro quo agreement? Rumors may be leaked when unpopular executive action is about to be taken, or the leak may be true but falsely attributed in order to protect the source.
All of these lies are now so widely expected that voters are at a loss to know when they can and cannot believe what a candidate claims while campaigning. The damage to trust is irreversible. Our democratic system is undermining itself by lulling the voters into thinking most politicians are so similar it does not really make much difference who gets elected -- a dangerous generalization indeed. Unfortunately, the ramifications of deceit and distrust only surface after the damage has been done, when reaction is necessary and proaction is not a possibility. Lies do weaken our political system and those serving the public should be held to the highest standards. No lie is acceptable: mine, yours, or theirs. Government officials should not condone lies, but categorically speak, and practice, the truth.
Cindy Wright is a student at MCLA
Friendship
A Dialogue
Christopher Gutt
Neal: Thank you for calling me. I just had to get away from everybody. I could not even stay at home, because they kept calling me.
Chris: Did you get into a fight with them?
Neal: No, our friendships still persist; however, we do the same thing every night, and they find it difficult to understand that I would rather do something else for a change. Also, I am having similar difficulties with my girlfriend, Merideth. Whenever we are together, all we do is have sex. Other than that, she enjoys going out and getting drunk, but I do not. There seems to be something lacking in our relationship.
Chris: Would you say there is something lacking in your relationship with George or Ben?
Neal: Perhaps, but those are not the same as my relationship with Merideth.
Chris: You said that you were tired of doing things with George and Ben, yet you seem tired of not doing things with Merideth. At what point would you be doing too much with someone?
Neal: I think that how two friends spend their time together is more important than how much time they spend together.
Chris: What do you mean when you say "friends"?
Neal: Well, I would say that George and Ben are my friends; I am not sure about Merideth, though.
Chris: What quality do your relationships with George and Ben have that your relationship with Merideth lacks?
Neal: Sometimes I doubt that I know Merideth as well as I know George or Ben.
Chris: Do you mean that familiarity is essential for friendship?
Neal: Yes.
Chris: I saw Ben reading the autobiography of Frederick Douglass. He is certainly familiar with Douglass, but Douglass is not his friend, nor would they be friends if Douglass were alive today and had read a book about Ben.
Neal: There is a difference between knowing someone and knowing about someone, which is that when we know someone, we share an experience with that person.
Chris: Two people inhabit two separate bodies. It must be difficult for them to share the same experience.
Neal: I mean that one's experience of a set of stimuli has the same meaning as the other's experience of the same set of stimuli.
Chris: If I poke you in the side, what meaning will that have?
Neal: It will not have meaning. Some experiences do have meaning, though; for example, when someone assaulted Frederick Douglass, it must have had meaning for him, or else he would not have written about it.
Chris: What meaning did it have?
Neal: That would be for Douglass to decide.
Chris: How do two people know that their experiences have the same meaning?
Neal: It will be obvious. For example, I said that I doubted that my relationship with Merideth was a friendship, because we did not share experiences. When we have sex, it does not mean the same thing for her as it does for me, for if it did, it would mean for her that she desired to form a deeper friendship with me. We may find a contradiction to that claim in her unwillingness to do other things with me. In the case of assault, if you were to assault me for instance, it would mean that we were no longer friends.
Chris: There would be that same meaning for me as well. However, this shared experience cannot be sufficient for friendship, for then the mutually recognized nonexistence of our friendship would actually imply, as the meaning of the assault, the existence of our friendship.
Neal: Yes; there must be another requirement for friendship, and I think this is an attraction to the other.
Chris: I do not think you mean a sexual attraction.
Neal: No, but that is one type of attraction. Although I am sexually attracted to Merideth, we are still not friends because we do not also have the shared experiences, and the contradiction you mentioned does not hold in the context of attraction.
Chris: Are you attracted to Ben and George? You already told me you were tired of doing the same thing all the time.
Neal: There may be other things we could do together. We used to play music together. Two people will be attracted to each other if they are similarly attracted to an activity or interest which draws them together.
Chris: Is that how you became friends with George and Ben? I would find it difficult to believe that you had shared the activity of playing music with them in your attic if you had not been friends before that.
Neal: Actually, we became friends almost as soon as we introduced ourselves and started talking.
Chris: Do you start a conversation with everyone to whom you introduce yourself?
Neal: No, but in their case I did, because looking at them, even at the way they were dressed, I could tell that they were like me and we had at least that interest in common to inspire conversation.
Chris: If two people introduce themselves, do they not necessarily have the minimal shared interest of the introduction itself? In that case, all who introduce themselves would have the attraction, the shared experience and the
shared interest qualifying them as friends.
Neal: Then I would add to our list of qualifications the necessity that the relationship last through time, though I know you will ask me how long it must last, and I do not have an answer for that. I do know, however, that two people can introduce themselves out of habit, or out of obligation, and there need not be an actual interest in the event.
Chris: Concerning the case in which there is an interest for two people to introduce themselves, is there something different between that interest, attraction and experience and those interests, attractions and experiences which really bind them as friends?
Neal: There is a necessary, but neither fixed nor minimal, difference between what or how much they do together.
Chris: Are we friends?
Neal: Yes.
Chris: What are we doing together?
Neal: We are communicating.
Chris: Could we not communicate if we were not friends?
Neal: We could, but if we were not friends, we might not be so kind in doing so. In fact, I am getting somewhat annoyed at you for finding a contradiction in everything I say, but I do not hold it against you. We may say that friends do not hold things against each other, for they have established a willingness to forgive each other, which even those who provide the facade of kindness may not really have. I would say that this is essential in a friendship, and perhaps the shared time, interests, experience, and attraction two friends have only form the means by which they establish this willingness to forgive. You will see that for any two friends, there is to some degree a willingness to forgive. If there were not then they would not have made the commitment to become friends in the first place.
.
Christopher Gutt is a student at MCLA
General Education and Convergence
Joseph J. Weiner
‡ One’s view of the world is limited when one thinks only in terms of categorized genres. The best forms of education recognize and exploit the necessary interrelatedness of the disciplines. This is the theme of convergence, which achieves a focus in a single discipline while integrating related aspects of others. A complete understanding of an issue requires an understanding of all perspectives from which that issue can be addressed and analyzed.
It follows that a general education program is vital to the curriculum of any liberal arts college. Consider, for example, the optimal integration of philosophy and literature. Since every method has philosophical presuppositions, the different methods of literary criticism enable us both to analyze texts and to become familiar with a variety of philosophical theories.
In essence, convergence allows the student to develop fully as a thinker by introducing topics in a way that does not limit their potential scope and importance. For example, a student of mass communications with a solid foundation in American history could speculate intelligently about how popular cultural images came to be, and track the evolution of cultural changes in American society. A general education course in philosophy might add logical and ethical skills to the mix, allowing the student still greater insights into the dynamics of our culture.
Joseph Weiner is a student at MCLA
Legitimate Expectations of General Education
Katherine Jassen
‡ There are two legitimate components to what an educational institution does in the process that results in a diploma. One is verification (or certification). This is where the school assures some third party, and also the student him- or herself, that the student has measured up to some standard. The other is the actual transmission or facilitation of knowledge, techniques, information, and methods. Only the latter is "education," of course.
Clearly a school's main job is "education." But verification purports to report education's "results" to other "customers" than just the student. When it's done well, these others (employers, grad schools, etc.) rely on its assurances. When it is done carelessly or dishonestly it cheats these people. They (and the student, too, of course) are falsely assured of the student's competence. Standards for "passing" should reflect this. If someone fails to meet the standard, he or she should keep trying. If administrators find themselves tempted to slack off on the standards to which they will actually hold students, they should instead consider retiring the requirement. Similarly, if someone has already exceeded it, as with athletes who have clearly already learned and applied “phys ed" skills, it is inappropriate for the school to require more.
Diplomas and transcripts, upon graduation, provide three kinds of verification: that the student has met the minimal requirements, that (where appropriate) work beyond the minimum has been done, and its nature, and that the student has also met whatever the school requires in terms of gen eds. Of these three components, which can a school plausibly take "credit" for? Certainly they can take credit for their role in students' work done beyond the minimum, for that kind of learning almost surely occurs in residence and reflects on the school's actual offerings. And they may also claim credit for most of the "major" work in a minimal degree, because few students enter with much skill beyond the first-year level.
But general education requirements are different! Almost all gen eds at almost any college occur precisely at entry-level, where a lot of work is repetition. So the real purpose of the broadly distributed liberal arts gen eds is purely to verify, by the end of college, that no gaps need filling. Sure, most students will have such gaps, and so these gen eds will always have "customers." The class you were not good in, the class your school did not offer, the class you had always hoped you could avoid. But it is not possible to deduce, from the diplomas at the end, which (if any) of your gen ed skills you learned there and which you came in with. For this reason, it should be entirely possible for any student (at not just MCLA, but any school) to be able to "test out" of any gen ed requirement. It is legitimate to expect students actually to grasp what the gen eds are intended to provide. It is not okay to require these things of everyone merely pro forma, merely "to say we did." If they are not willing to exempt people with existing skills, or truly to educate the ones who do not have them, they have no business requiring these skills at all.
Katherine Jassen is a student at MCLA
General Education
A Dialogue
Gary Burchard and Janice Stefane
‡ We have based the following, fictional dialogue on the results of interviews with MCLA students on the topic of general education.
Setting: the cafeteria, lunch time. A student is eating and looking over next semester’s schedule. Another student enters, sitting opposite the seated student.
Student 1: Hey, what’s up?
Student 2: I didn’t see you at the party last night. Where were you? It was quite an event! The party got busted and my friend hurled all over the cop’s shirt. What a sight!
Student 1: I was studying for a Western Civ test.
Student 2: On a Friday night?
Student 1: Hey, I have to pass the class, or I don’t graduate next semester. It’s my last gen ed.
Student 2: Gen eds! Don’t even mention gen eds. I have to take a kazillion of them next semester. It’s such a waste of time.
Student 1: That’s what I thought at first. I figured it would be more beneficial to concentrate on classes dealing with my major. I came here to get my degree and then get a job. All of these unrelated courses seemed like a waste of time and money.
Student 2: Yeah. I pay for my own education. I can’t believe someone requires me to take 18 specific courses to graduate. How am I supposed to graduate in four years? With all these gen eds it will take six years.
Student 1: I’ve done it in four years. Somehow I even managed to pull off a double major in the meantime.
Student 2: (smirking) Yeah, but you stay in on Friday nights studying for classes.
Student 1: (smugly) I make up for it on Saturdays.
Student 2: Look at this (sliding tentative schedule over to Student1). I only have one course scheduled relating to my major, the rest are all gen eds. I have no interest in any of them. Tell me, when am I going to use half of this stuff? I think my friend has it right, “All the math needed in the real world was taught in high school.” And I can’t believe I have to take two phys ed courses. (sarcastically) At least they offer bowling and golf. If we’re lucky they might offer shuffleboard and checkers next year. I look at it this way; if I can’t find a job, at least I can join the bowling league.
Student 1: You’re not serious, are you?
Student 2: Of course not. But I do think that substitutions should be offered. If I don’t want to take history, some other course I am interested in should be offered as an alternative. I may not be good at history. Besides, some of this stuff I already took in high school. It was easy then, and boring. I don’t want to have to repeat it. Where’s the challenge in that?
Student 1: If you want a challenge, wouldn’t learning new subject matter be just that? Can acquiring more knowledge be detrimental? College is a place not only for learning new material, but studying formerly presented material in depth, as well. You said you might not be good at history and should therefore be offered an alternative like writing, for instance. Isn’t that just a cop out?
Student 2: What do you mean, ‘a cop out’?
Student 1: Don’t you think that a good reason to take the history is simply because you’re not good at it? Taking an alternative means depriving yourself of the knowledge and skills that the class has to offer. Isn’t the point of an education to improve skills you have and acquire skills you don’t?
Student 2: What about skills and knowledge that I’m not going to need?
Student 1: How do you know you’re not going to need them? Have you taken your philosophy gen ed yet?
Student 2: No, and I don’t want to either. Why do I need to know what a bunch of dead Greek white guys thought? “I think, therefore I am”; and “I know that I know nothing.”
Student 1: I had the same misconceptions until I took the class. I found that philosophy is much more than the thoughts of a bunch of dead Greek white guys. I had never been exposed to philosophy before this intro class, I thought. But I found out that it is something I do everyday, and is, like other gen eds, interrelated with other courses and disciplines. My gen ed skills are building blocks which create a broad foundation of knowledge. This knowledge base is important in any discipline, including my major. As a matter of fact, I happened to change my major because I found other interests in other gen eds I was required to take.
Student 2: But I’m not going to change my major. I came here for a degree and I already have a specific job in mind. (pointing to a half-eaten piece of pizza) Are you gonna eat that?
Student 1: No, here (passing the pizza across the table). When you go to apply for this job, don’t you think that the employer, when faced with the choice of two equally qualified applicants, would choose the one with the broader background of knowledge? This would make the employee more versatile and more attractive toward future advancement in diverse areas.
Student 2: Well, I guess so.
Student 1: Many people don’t even have a career that coincides with the field of study they followed in college. If they do, people change jobs and careers an average of eight times in their life.* Gen eds give one the skills and tools needed to make job and career changes easier. This knowledge base makes less extra schooling and training necessary when one switches a career. Gen eds also provide skills to create understanding and help one excel in a diverse society.
Student 2: All right, I see your point. Some of it might be useful. Knowing about different things isn’t necessarily bad. But I’m an American. I pay for my education. Who are they to tell me what’s best for me? Only I know what’s best for me. This is an infringement of my academic freedom. I pay, I choose! How can they sit in their offices deciding what I need and what I don’t need? Then they tell me I can’t graduate without these things. Aren’t I responsible for my own education?
Student 1: You know, what you said reminds me of my little brother. He doesn’t want to eat his dinner; he would rather have cookies instead. If he had his way, he would live on nothing but cookies. It’s what he wants and what he thinks he needs.
Student 2: Huh?
Student 1: What I’m saying is that one’s desires are not always synonymous with one’s needs. My brother didn’t know that he couldn’t live on cookies until he got a little older and acquired some more experience. Now, he still desires the cookies, but realizes that he first needs to eat other things, then can have some cookies.
Student 2: Well . . . . . . . . . I need to get to class. I’ll see you later (exits the cafeteria). Student 1 smiles thinking, I’m gonna go get some cookies, and leaves the table.
* Statistics taken from the job hunter’s guide, What Color Is Your Parachute?
.
Gary Burchard and Janice Stefane are students at MCLA
General Education and Foreign Languages
Tracy Fraser
‡ The most common response I receive when I ask how students feel about having foreign language as a general education requirement is: “Who needs it? I won’t have any use for it in the ‘real world’.” One would be inclined to think this given the attitude toward foreigners in this country. It is a common belief in this country, among both young and old, that if you come to the United States, even if only for a vacation, you should speak our language. How many people who hold this belief have actually been to other countries and are fluent in the languages of the nation that they visit? Speaking from personal experience, when I traveled to Mexico I never spoke Spanish, and yet everyone I ran into, from hotel managers to cab drivers, were able to speak to me, in English. The same should be true in our country.
It is about time for it to be a requirement for all college graduates to have at least a working knowledge of another language. Especially those graduating from a Liberal Arts college. If you graduate with a Liberal Arts degree from many other Liberal Arts colleges, then you are required to take four years of a foreign language. Should the same not be true for all other degrees? There is no profession for which having a working knowledge of another language would not be beneficial. This is true of teaching, for instance. There are many schools now, particularly in the southwest and large cities, where even to be considered for a teaching position you are required to have a working knowledge of Spanish. Even if the position is not one that would require teaching Spanish, the teacher must be able to communicate with students for whom English is not a first language. The same is true for anyone who wishes to become involved in police work, most types of business that deal with foreign trade, hotel and restaurant management, and many other popular professions.
English may be the official language of the United States, but a very large portion of the population does not speak English as a first language, and have had to learn simply to survive in this country. To deny that is to bury our heads in the sand. As the premiere public liberal arts college of the state, this school needs to do everything it can to ensure that students receive a well-rounded education, and that involves, to a certain degree, preparing students to live in the “real world.” The real world consists of many people of many different backgrounds who speak many different languages. This school does not actively promote the opportunity to become interested in a foreign language because it is not a general education requirement. Not to have even one foreign language requirement denies students a liberal education, and quite probably hurts their ability to be first in line for a job.
choices they confront and the purposes of those courses.
Tracy Fraser is a student at MCLA
General Education at MCLA
Maude Mikulewicz
‡ I propose that a change needs to be made in the current system of general education at MCLA. Although I approve of the concept of general education, I believe that the format is unnecessarily restrictive, and could be made more student- and faculty-friendly with a few changes.
Currently, the system is set up so that a student has a number of different categories to fill, all designated by number. These categories contain several different classes, sometimes spanning more than one department, and the student must pick one of these to fulfill the requirement. Instead of this system, I propose that, with some exceptions, a student must pick one class from every department.
There are two main reasons for the proposed change. The first assumes that individual departments know best which courses are appropriate for an introductory level student, and which courses are more advanced. So by opening up every course in a department without a prerequisite to be used as a general education course, it expands the student's choices without causing a student to enroll in a class he or she is not ready for.
The second benefit of this system would be to cut down on general education waivers and courses that simply repeat material the student already knows. For example, under the current system, a proficient English student must either take Composition I or be waived out of it. But if a student is able to pick from any lower division courses in the Department, and is able to prove that he or she has mastered the skills of the Composition courses, then he or she would be free to move directly to Essentials of Literature (the next departmental prerequisite) and then on to specific writing or literature courses of interest while still fulfilling general education requirements.
It could be argued that this proposal misses the point of general education – to make sure that each student has a sufficient grasp of elementary material. But this seems opposed to the basic thrust of a quality, liberal arts education. Instead of requiring that students simply learn something in most fields, we should require that they learn something more in most fields. This will foster both liberal learning and the idea that education is a lifelong goal – not something to be abandoned at a certain level of proficiency.
It may be countered also that liberal learning, to be worthy of the name, must be cross-disciplinary. But the truth of the matter is that most of the general education requirements as they stand are already attached to a particular department. I maintain that having the requirements follow the natural fault lines of the departments, rather than artificial ones set by committee, would give students a clearer picture of the choices they confront and the purposes of those courses.
Maude Mikulewicz is a student at MCLA
No comments:
Post a Comment