Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

June 24, 2002, 9:05 a.m. Course Reasoning The University of Chicago dumps Western Civ. Albert Keith Whitaker

ven after he was voted dictator for life, Julius Caesar strenously avoided appearing to be a king, for he estimated, as one ancient historian observed, that the Roman people would "submit with patience to the fact, and yet at the same time dread the name as the destruction of their liberty." Indeed, were his supporters similarly circumspect, the Ides of March might never have gained their sinister repute.

The current controversy at the University of Chicago over "History of Western Civilization" may seem to depend upon a similar confusion of word and deed. Some students and alumni have protested the faculty and administration's decision to curtail this one course, but the Common Core which once defined the U of C's "College" has, in fact, long since fallen to pieces.

Still, this analogy would overlook the truth that every change in the College's curriculum since Robert Maynard Hutchins's departure in 1951 — indeed, since his arrival in 1929 — has stirred up vociferous criticism and debate, on campus and off. Unfortunately, since 1952 the side that would hold the College to its Hutchins-era standards of seriousness has consistently lost these fights. Just as the Roman people in the first century BC lost their liberties and Rome lurched towards totalitarianism, so too, though far more peacefully, has the U of C traded its rigorous College Core (which in its original form including 13 required, year-long courses) in favor of something indistinguishable from the usual wishy-washy distribution requirements.

But as long as an argument is on, hope springs eternal in the U of C'er's heart. That's why it is especially important to respond to the shoddy defense of ending Western Civ that U of C President Donald Randel offered in the most recent issue of the school's alumni magazine, Chicago. President Randel is right on one point: "What is central to the spirit of the University of Chicago is a willingness, indeed eagerness, to engage in reasoned debate about more or less anything — debate rooted in fact, to the extent that it can be known, and guided by disciplined thought, which must be ever open to the possibility of a superior argument." OK: Let's rumble.

I would let pass President Randel's next remark — "What is not central to the spirit of the University of Chicago is an inclination to assert an ideological position with a simultaneous declaration that anyone holding a different view is morally bankrupt." — as an overly defensive attempt to paint his critics as meanies. But much of his argument amounts to such mischaracterization of his opponents and their views.

For example, he calmly suggests, "But it is useful at such a moment [when trying to raise $2 billion in the face of alumni protest] to reflect on what the truly essential characteristics of the University have been and are. These characteristics are certainly not reducible to any single course or set of courses." The last sentences nicely sets up a strawman: No one claims that Western Civ alone embodies the truly essential characteristics of the U of C. But many do conclude that the reduction or elimination of this course — like the shrinking of the already anemic core requirements only three years ago — follows a troubling pattern, causes real damage, and portends an even worse future.

But my favorite strawman in this short piece is this one: "A century ago, some maintained passionately that nothing written in America could possibly be worthy of inclusion in a university curriculum. Imagine saying the comparable thing today. Nothing, not even Bellow."

Who are these "some"? They're strangely nameless. In any case, they are irrelevant, since again President Randel misstates his critics, none of whom have said that nothing can ever be added to the university's curriculum. Indeed, one of the more prominent of them, George Anastaplo, recently came out with an entire book on non-Western thinkers — a book deeply informed, however, by the thorough knowledge of Western Civ he acquired at the U of C. Approached correctly, the study of the West opens the mind to other cultures as well as to great ideas past, present, and future. (By the way, though he appears to admire him as a novelist, President Randel apparently remains unmoved by Saul Bellow's own call for Western Civ to be returned to its place of honor in the College's curriculum.)

Caracituring the other side serves to shade the weakness of President Randel's argument for dropping Western Civ. Towards the beginning of his piece he provides this quote from the College coursebook: "Many national figures in higher education have been identified with Chicago's undergraduate curriculum — including William Rainey Harper, Robert Maynard Hutchins, and Edward Levi — but learning at Chicago has never been the province of one person or one vision."

Harper and Levi, while noteworthy administrators, serve here as red herrings. Everyone familiar with the U of C's history knows that Hutchins's vision elevated the university far beyond what Harper had achieved and that Levi, with good intentions, could not sustain his predecessor's plans. But this history lesson serves here as nothing but a dodge. It suggests, in essence, "No one person created this College. Therefore, we may blithely contravene or ignore the most commanding vision of the most important administrator in its history." How convenient.

President Randel then appears to begin an argument: "First, as to the facts, the course titled History of Western Civilization has not been a College requirement for decades."

In response, one might say that, though an old story, past lowering of standards never justifies ditching the salutary remnants of old requirements. One could also point out that this is another dodge — the current debate is not over Western Civ's being required but being eliminated. After all, no administrator would defend demolishing a gym by saying, 'Well, we haven't required phys-ed for several decades…' Indeed, the fact that even without its being a requirement Western Civ remains so popular and well-regarded among students and alumni testifies to its status as the "gem" in the College's curriculum.

The president adds, "Second, this change in course offerings does not mean that we have sunk into a pit of utter relativism and lost all sense of what the achievements of European and American civilizations might be said to be."

One should observe the clumsy "might be said to be" at the end. What does the good man fear? That someone will denounce him for affirming that Plato, Moses, or Jefferson are great men worth studying? Again, this sentence merely misrepresents opponents' views. No one claims that the current administration has lost "all sense." Maybe most, but not all.

To recall, President Randel did affirm that "reasoned debate" sits at the center of the U of C's spirit. But in other parts of his letter he sounds a distinctly different note: Dropping Western Civ "…only means that the University of Chicago remains committed to thinking about this subject critically, just as it remains committed to thinking critically about absolutely every other subject" And later: "Let us…swear that we will forever think critically about whatever there is to think about, including ourselves."

Moving from "reasoned debate" to critical thinking is a subtle but immense shift, and ultimately a sophistic one. Kill Western Civ? That's critical thinking. Dump Hutchins et al.? Critical thinking, all the way. Forget even what the Common Core meant? Now we're really cooking with critical Crisco. Indeed, the more dismissive one becomes, the more one can crow about critical thinking. But no one should mistake such crowing for reasoned debate.

To clinch his piece, President Randel lets loose this zinger: "Why should we wish to adhere eternally to narratives about our history written by some number of German or British writers of the 19th century? To think of new and richer narratives based on these same texts and an increasing body of facts ought to be what we are all about in a university worthy of the name."

Eternally? "History of Western Civ" began only in 1948! As for "some number of German or British writers of the 19th century" — isn't a slap at them just a bit comical? For decades, thousands of eighth-rate instructors all across this land have taken shots at the great minds who created the disciplines they claim to teach. Now, at this late date, the President of no less than the University of Chicago bravely strides in to deliver the 19th century one more kick in the fanny. I suspect his foot winds up in a part of his own anatomy.

In any event, how could someone with such a flip attitude towards the history of ideas come up with a "richer" account of Western thought than the scholars who devoted their lives to its careful analysis, preservation, and continuation? As men such as Wilamowitz, or Burkhardt, or Jowett might have replied, "Talk is cheap. Show us your narrative." If one then gave them the requirements and course lists at 99 percent of American universities today they would have laughed. The U of C was an exception. But for how much longer?

Just as Robert Maynard Hutchins did not build the University of Chicago by himself, so too no one individual — President Randel or anyone else — is responsible for the demise of Western Civ and the rest of the Common Core. Western Civ is dying because the departments have not hired faculty truly committed to liberal education. The departments have not done so because past and present administrations have not forced them to look beyond very narrow disciplinary turf. But there's no time like the present. President Randel should reverse the decision to phase out Western Civ. Even better, he should charge the faculty with finding ways to strengthen the shared experience of liberal education at the College. As for the rest of us, we should demand not only the name, but the fact, of reasoned debate.