[1321] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
The Smearing of Chicago
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Walter Holland)
Mon Jun 24 12:51:23 2002
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 11:23:01 -0400
From: Walter Holland <mr_mole@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
This article from The Chronicle of Higher Education
(http://chronicle.com) was forwarded to you from: mr_mole@mit.edu
_________________________________________________________________
The following message was enclosed:
perspective on Horrible Controversy Undoing the Fabric of our
Community!
_________________________________________________________________
From the issue dated June 28, 2002
The Smearing of Chicago
By THOMAS BARTLETT
Word is out. The University of Chicago is selling students
"seriously short."Or so claims the Chicago Sun-Times.
It isn't alone. Advocacy groups like the National Association
of Scholars and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni
denounce the university in no uncertain terms. The novelist
Saul Bellow accuses Chicago of giving in to the "mindless
narrowing and specialization that has characterized other
universities for decades." Harsh words, especially from an
alumnus and former professor who is a Nobel laureate.
All of this is a reaction to the history department's
replacing most sections of its venerable "Western
Civilization" course -- part of Chicago's famous Common Core
curriculum -- with two new core courses, "European
Civilization" and "Ancient Mediterranean World," beginning
this fall.
Chicago has long been known for having one of the toughest
undergraduate programs anywhere. Since the Common Core's
origin, in 1931, the small, discussion-based classes that
focus on classic texts have been a source of fierce pride for
the legions who love the university. That group extends beyond
alumni to many scholars who see Chicago as a rare force in
academe for its emphasis on intellectualism and rigor over
pre-professionalism and easy A's.
Critics argue that Chicago is now abandoning that impressive
legacy. In this controversy, though, the substance of the
change has been repeatedly misrepresented. You may have heard
that Chicago undergraduates won't be reading the ancient
classics (they'll probably read more), that lectures are
replacing seminars (they aren't), or that administrators
pushed the plan despite faculty members' objections (the idea
came from the professors who teach "Western Civilization," all
of whom voted in favor of the change).
The Sacred 'Civ' Courses
Blood-and-guts battles over what to teach undergraduates are
part of Chicago's identity. The core has been reshuffled
several times during its history, and each time the changes
have been hotly debated. In 1999, about 1,700 students
attended a "fun-in" mocking then-President Hugo F.
Sonnenschein's supposed emphasis on fun at the expense of
academics. "Chicago is a strange place," says James M.
Redfield, a professor of classical languages and literatures,
who has taught at the university since 1960. "The curriculum
is the flag. We have student riots about it."
At times, Mr. Redfield counted himself among those who
disagreed with Mr. Sonnenschein's proposals. Some of the
university's decisions have not been in keeping with its
traditions, he believes. But, he says, "this is not one of
them."
What isn't changing is that Chicago undergraduates have to
take 15 to 18 courses (depending on whether they pass a
foreign-language exam) in a range of disciplines, including
math, science, and the humanities. That's more than most
colleges require. Stanford University students, for example,
take nine general-education courses.
Part of the reason for the change is practical: The new
courses will be two quarters long rather than three. Because
students are required to take only two quarters of
civilization, professors thought it made sense to offer them
in two-quarter blocks.There will be optional third quarters as
well, covering such topics as "The Idea of Civilization" and
"The British Empire."
But the change also presents an opportunity to rethink the
civilization curriculum. The professors say it will remain
faithful to the mission of the core, and will correct what
they believe are oversights. For instance, in "Western
Civilization," Spain barely showed up. Several professors
note that they will also be able to spend more time on the
founding of the United States, a neglected subject in "Western
Civilization."
"We're trying to create a course that looks at this with more
complexity," says Rachel Fulton, an associate professor of
history. While the reading list will stay virtually the same,
she adds, professors in the "European Civilization" course
will try to make more explicit the connections between
historical periods.
Others on the campus aren't convinced. Education First, a
student group at Chicago, is trying to persuade the university
not to cut the number of "Western Civilization" sections.
"We're concerned that it's a move toward more specialization,
and that it's more about what faculty want to teach than what
students want to learn," says Sara Butler, president of the
group. It sponsored a student referendum in May in which 68
percent of the voters favored reconsidering the decision.
(Just over a third of the 4,000 undergraduates voted.) Campus
newspapers have also come out against the change. One student
columnist speculated that faculty members are "simply
uninterested in teaching snotty-nosed undergraduates about
Plato."
Plato's The Apology of Socrates is on Richard P. Saller's
syllabus. A professor of history and the university's provost,
he helped design the new "Ancient Mediterranean World" course.
He says students will read more ancient texts than they would
have in "Western Civilization" -- including, for example, a
book from Livy's history of Rome. "It will allow me to teach
Rome in 10 weeks rather than 3 or 4," he says.
But that's precisely the problem, says Stanley Kurtz, a fellow
at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University and a
contributing editor at National Review, a conservative
magazine. He sees the shift as an example of faculty members'
choosing to teach their research specialties rather than
ground students in the fundamentals. "They're losing the
connection between the classical period and the Middle Ages,"
he argues.
Crucial Connections
That is a key objection. Critics like Mr. Kurtz say that by
learning Aristotle in a different course from, say, Descartes,
students will miss crucial connections. History professors
argue that no history course can be comprehensive, and that
it's the professor's job to help students understand the
connections between what they learn in various courses. "When
you teach history, you start at a certain point fully aware
that things happened before," says Tamar Herzog, an assistant
professor of history, who calls the controversy "a lot of
smoke but no fire."
Mr. Kurtz, though, remains fired-up: "It's absurd, outrageous,
and I object in the strongest possible terms."
He did just that on the National Review Web site. In a brief
article posted in April, he bemoans the loss of "the jewel of
the university's core curriculum" and encourages alumni to
"give serious consideration to withholding contributions and
writing letters of protest." He also makes it clear who is to
blame: "For the past three years, Chicago's renowned core
curriculum has been under a slow but steady assault by the
administration of president Hugo Sonnenschein."
As it happens, Mr. Sonnenschein stepped down three years ago.
The current president, Don M. Randel, supports the history
department's decision and says the controversy is based
largely on "misinformation."
Mr. Kurtz admits to the mistake, chalking it up to the perils
of publishing quickly on the Web. He also concedes that he
knows little about the specifics of the plan. In an interview,
he insists that the University of Chicago is abandoning its
"Great Books" program -- something that it has never had.
Unlike undergraduates at Columbia University, those at Chicago
do not all read the same set of important works. Even in
"Western Civilization," professors choose their own readings,
based on the period being covered.
One of the first to dash to the alarm was the National
Association of Scholars, which sent out a news release in
April denouncing the change. Next came a statement from
another tradition-minded group, the American Council of
Trustees and Alumni, which included Mr. Bellow's charge of
"mindless narrowing." That statement was also signed by a
number of well-known conservatives, including Robert H. Bork
and Gertrude Himmelfarb. Soon articles expressing similar
outrage began appearing in newspapers and on a number of Web
sites. In a letter to The Washington Post, a Chicago alumna
said she would no longer make donations to her alma mater.
A spokesman says Mr. Bellow does not want to comment further.
Glenn Ricketts, an NAS spokesman, says the group heard about
the policy change from "various sources" at Chicago but didn't
attempt to verify the information with those in charge of the
courses. While he acknowledges that the statement was based on
"preliminary information" and so was not entirely accurate, he
says the organization stands by its condemnation of the new
approach. "It doesn't reflect the kind of big-picture focus
that Chicago is known for," he says.
Such criticism has frustrated Chicago's history professors.
"We're not head-in-the-clouds specialists who don't want to
talk to undergraduates," says Ms. Fulton. "In fact, the reason
we created this course is that we really care about
undergraduate teaching." She and Steven Pincus, an associate
professor of history, designed the new "European Civilization"
course. The two say students will still read classic texts,
like Beowulf and Machiavelli's Discourses. And classes will
continue to be small -- 22 or fewer students -- and to favor
discussions over lectures.
Mr. Pincus says alumni have asked him why the core courses
will be taught in large lectures -- an option that was never
considered. Others have asked why the history department is
eliminating the study of Christianity -- also untrue.
A similar claim was made in The Washington Times, which
reported that an "introduction to early Christianity" would be
removed from Chicago's curriculum. The article didn't mention
the new "Ancient Mediterranean" course. "It strikes me that
it's an incredibly wrongheaded attack," Mr. Pincus says. "What
we're trying to do is keep general education alive and well
here."
Robert L. Stone will have none of that. A real-estate lawyer
in Chicago, he received a Ph.D. in political science and a law
degree from the university in the 1980s. About 10 years ago,
he bought a run-down fraternity house across the street from
the campus and fixed it up. He lives there now with his wife
and four children.
Mr. Stone has become one of the university's chief critics. He
runs a Web site (http://www.realuofc.org) dedicated to
preserving the "real" University of Chicago and is often
quoted in newspaper articles. In 1998, he encouraged alumni to
withhold donations to protest a reduction in the number of
core courses, from 21 to 18. The latest change, he says, is
nothing less than "a landmark in a continual slide" toward
mediocrity. Like Mr. Kurtz, he blames overspecialization. "The
dumbing down of the core really comes from the younger
faculty," he says. "They don't like old-fashioned subjects.
Newton and Aristotle are old-fashioned." (In fact, the works
of both continue to be taught in the new core courses.)
The lawyer took part in a panel on Chicago's core curriculum
at the National Association of Scholars convention this month.
Several of those present, including Mr. Stone, singled out
John W. Boyer, dean of the undergraduate college and a
professor of history, as one of the administrators responsible
for "ruining" the core curriculum and then trying to cover up
their misdeeds. "Boyer is saying things that are manifestly
untrue," says Mr. Stone.
The dean is an unlikely target. He has taught "Western
Civilization" for 30 years. He has also written a series of
papers on the history of the college and its curriculum, in
which he explores the continuing debates over how and what to
teach undergraduates -- debates that were often as heated as
the current one.
Mr. Boyer is, however, an outspoken defender of the new
courses. "Some are genuinely concerned with what I would call
the virtue of the school," he says. "They need to understand
that curricular innovation and developing new courses is part
of the natural work of the university."
Like others at Chicago, he has had to respond to an array of
faulty conclusions. One of the most common is that Chicago has
recently stopped requiring all of its undergraduates to take
"Western Civilization." That step actually was taken in 1966.
Since the mid-1980s, all students have been required to take a
class in civilization -- though not necessarily "Western
Civilization." Among the other courses offered are "Islamic
Civilization," "East Asian Civilization," and "Judaic
Civilization."
Part of the conflict comes from a misunderstanding of the
nature of the university's core curriculum. Chicago has more
core requirements than Columbia, for example, but students
also have more choices. And the core has undergone several
substantial revisions over the years. "Alumni want to know why
it's not 1954," says Mr. Redfield, the professor of classical
languages and literatures, who happened to be an undergraduate
at Chicago that year.
The Fun School?
In 1999, another core-related contretemps led to the
resignation of the university's president. At the time, Mr.
Sonnenschein, now a professor in the economics department,
said he was stepping aside in favor of someone who was "less a
symbol of change." That was a glancing acknowledgment of the
reason for his departure: the protests of a vocal contingent
of students, faculty members and alumni, who saw the former
president as threatening everything their university stood
for.
He wanted to increase the number of undergraduates by 1,000
over seven years, to a total of 4,500. He favored a slight
reduction in the number of core courses, so that students
could finish their general-education requirements in the first
two years. He placed more emphasis on attracting new students,
noting that Chicago received far fewer applications than other
elite colleges, like Brown University and Yale University. He
also pushed to increase the endowment and broke ground for a
new athletics center with an Olympic-size swimming pool,
replacing the pint-size pool built back in 1904.
That pool became a symbol of Mr. Sonnenschein's presidency. He
was seen as the man who wanted to make Chicago more "fun," at
the expense of intellectual rigor. Even though it was faculty
members who voted in 1998 to lower the number of core courses,
many took the move as an attack by the president on Chicago's
sacred curriculum.
So what is Mr. Sonnenschein's legacy? Chicago is attracting
many more applicants than before. This year it received 8,189
applications, compared with 5,419 in 1996. But it has not, as
critics feared, lowered academic standards to do so. The SAT
scores of incoming freshman have actually gone up over the
past several years. When asked in a survey what
characteristics they associated with the college, 97 percent
of freshmen marked "intellectual." Only 1 percent checked
"partying." Undergraduate enrollment now tops 4,000 and is on
course for the seven-year plan. The $51-million athletics
center is scheduled to open next year.
The former president did not want to be interviewed for this
article. But in a dialogue published by Chicago's alumni
magazine soon after his resignation, he said he recognized
that some of the changes had been "painful" and
"controversial." When asked what he would have done
differently, he responded: "You don't realize that there's a
particular group of people who are deeply concerned about an
action, and you do not explain the action well enough."
Western Civ Lives
One thing that perhaps has not been explained well enough in
the current controversy is that, contrary to some newspaper
headlines, the "Western Civilization" course will not be
dropped altogether. Two sections, accommodating 44 students,
will be offered next year, taught by Karl and Katy O'Brien
Weintraub (who are married). Mr. Weintraub, who is officially
retired from the university, has taught the course since 1954.
Ms. Weintraub, a lecturer, has taught the course for 14 years.
The Weintraubs are skeptical of the new courses and plan to
continue teaching "Western Civilization" as it has been taught
for more than 50 years. "It never grows old. For me, it's been
very rewarding," he says.
Mr. Boyer, the dean, will teach one quarter of Ms. Weintraub's
course in the fall, as well as one quarter of "European
Civilization." "I think he wants to support both courses," she
says.
For the professors who spent a great deal of time designing
the new courses, the unveiling of the results has been
flattering and frustrating. Most of the attention the courses
have received has been negative. "It's hard to have a
conversation when the other person begins with, 'Oh, so you're
killing Western Civ,'" says Ms. Fulton. The historians say
they understand how an action's symbolic value can take on a
life of its own. But that doesn't make this ordeal any easier.
"People worry about what we're doing, and that's fine," says
Mr. Boyer. "But they need to get their facts straight."
THE HISTORY OF CHICAGO'S 'CORE'
1931: The University of Chicago's core curriculum is born. The
so-called "New Plan," designed by Chauncey S. Boucher, dean of
the colleges, requires students to take 15 general-education
courses on the quarter system. There is no "Western
Civilization" course.
1942-47: The core curriculum is greatly expanded. Robert M.
Hutchins, Chicago's president, believes that the New Plan
allowed students too much flexibility during their first two
years. He favors having more requirements, which are added.
Western Civilization is not a separate course.
1949: "Western Civilization," which is taught over three
quarters, becomes a required course for all Chicago students.
Up to this point, history has been taught as part of the
humanities sequence. Now the university's historians, led by
Christian Mackauer, convince the administration that it should
be a separate requirement.
1959: The "Western Civilization" requirement is lowered to two
quarters. It is among the courses that can be waived if
students cannot finish all of their general-education courses
in a two-year period.
1966: The four undergraduate divisions are given more power to
decide general-education requirements. Only one, the Social
Sciences, chooses to keep "Western Civilization" as a
requirement.
1984-86: A more-uniform curriculum is reintroduced across the
divisions. All students are required to take a three-quarter
civilization course, but there are many to choose from,
including "South Asian Civilization," "Islamic Civilization,"
and "Latin American Civilization."
1998: The core curriculum is reduced from 21 courses to 18.
Some students and alumni protest the move, which the
administration says is intended to allow students to finish
their general-education courses during the first two years. As
part of the reduction, the civilization requirement drops from
three quarters to two.
2002: A new, two-quarter course (with an optional third
quarter) called "European Civilization" is introduced by the
history department. The course will replace all but two
sections of "Western Civilization." A new course called
"Ancience Mediterranean World" is also added.
SOURCE: Chronicle reporting A WEALTH OF MISINFORMATION
The decision by the University of Chicago's history professors
to replace most "Western Civilization" courses with two new
courses -- "European Civilization" and "Ancient Mediterranean
World" -- has grabbed headlines and the attention of academic
associations. But professors in the program complain that the
news reports have often failed to get the facts straight. Here
are some examples of what has been printed, along with what
professors say is the truth.
***
Press release from the National Association of Scholars (April
16): "Individual teachers in the new sequence will have
greater flexibility in assigning readings and will not be
required to organize their classes around Chicago's Readings
in Western Civilization, which for many years has defined the
core's substance."
Chicago professors say: The new course will continue to use
mostly primary documents (like "On Liberty," by John Stuart
Mill), many of them from Readings in Western Civilization, a
series published by the university. And rather than greater
flexibility, the new sequence actually imposes more uniformity
across the sections. Each year, faculty members will choose
texts that every student who takes "European Civilization"
must read. As in the past, professors can require students to
read additional texts, which may vary from section to section.
***
Article in The Washington Times: (April 19): "A majority of
Western-civilization core classes at the University of Chicago
will be replaced this fall with European-civilization courses
-- a move that will remove an introduction to early
Christianity and late antiquity from the classroom."
Chicago professors say: It is true that the new course will
start with the Middle Ages. But the article doesn't mention
that a new, two-quarter sequence called "Ancient Mediterranean
World" has been created, a core course that professors say
will allow them to teach the period in more depth.
***
Editorial in the Chicago Sun-Times (May 3): "Beginning this
fall, the yearlong program will be cut back to two quarters
and refashioned as more-compressed European political
history."
Chicago professors say: The reduction in the number of
required quarters from three to two happened in 1999. While
one professor has said he fears that the new course will
become a survey of European political history rather than a
broader civilization course, those who designed it say that is
not the case.
***
Column in the Chicago Tribune (June 2): "The new course
syllabus will be less rigid than the old one, enabling
instructors to teach to their strength -- i.e., their research
specialty."
Chicago professors say: Again, the new syllabus will actually
allow professors less flexibility than in years past. As for
teaching to their research specialty, Rachel Fulton, an
associate professor of history, says otherwise. She argues
that because the subject is so large (Europe from AD 500 to
the present), it would be impossible to focus on a specific
area of expertise.
SOURCE: Chronicle reporting
_________________________________________________________________
This article from The Chronicle is available online at this address:
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i42/42a01001.htm
If you would like to have complete access to The Chronicle's Web
site, a special subscription offer can be found at:
http://chronicle.com/4free
_________________________________________________________________
You may visit The Chronicle as follows:
* via the World-Wide Web, at http://chronicle.com
* via telnet at chronicle.com
_________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2002 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
