Books, Arts & Manners

Many have observed with sympathy the efforts of the Secretary of Education, Mr. William J. Bennett, to forge a national consensus for a renewed focus on curriculum, particularly in the field of the humanities. Mr. Bennett has reaffirmed the identity of the humanities, the continuity of humane studies, and the central force of literary, philosophical, and historical studies as they promote civic virtue and contribute to the tone of civilization and the cohesion of the polity. But even those who share Bennett’s concern must wonder about the dreary educational establishment that will inevitably monitor and control any reform. In the world of education, somehow it’s always Count Dracula who winds up chairing the local Blood Drive.

The greatest force militating against education in America today—besides intercollegiate sports, of course—is education. On some campuses, it has actually become difficult to put together a course of studies that, not so long ago, would have been considered to promote an education in the essential history of the West, the descent of philosophical inquiry, the history of the arts and literature and languages, and so on. The fragmentation and politicization of the curriculum may have already passed the point of no return. The imperatives of pragmatism, the expectations of careerists, the demands of cult groups, the increasing specialization of knowledge—many forces have nearly driven out the middle ground. Thus a recent offering of “English” courses at a local community college consisted of a bunch of sections of “freshperson” English, one course in Shakespeare, two sections of “Sexism in the Humanities,” and one section of “Women in Literature.” The local humanists had little to say, apparently; and this skewed representation was approved by the administration of a public institution of higher learning.

JT

About the Author

J. O. Tate

Featured Tags

Many have observed with sympathy the efforts of the Secretary of Education, Mr. William J. Bennett, to forge a national consensus for a renewed focus on curriculum, particularly in the field of the humanities. Mr. Bennett has reaffirmed the identity of the humanities, the continuity of humane studies, and the central force of literary, philosophical, and historical studies as they promote civic virtue and contribute to the tone of civilization and the cohesion of the polity. But even those who share Bennett’s concern must wonder about the dreary educational establishment that will inevitably monitor and control any reform. In the world of education, somehow it’s always Count Dracula who winds up chairing the local Blood Drive.

The greatest force militating against education in America today—besides intercollegiate sports, of course—is education. On some campuses, it has actually become difficult to put together a course of studies that, not so long ago, would have been considered to promote an education in the essential history of the West, the descent of philosophical inquiry, the history of the arts and literature and languages, and so on. The fragmentation and politicization of the curriculum may have already passed the point of no return. The imperatives of pragmatism, the expectations of careerists, the demands of cult groups, the increasing specialization of knowledge—many forces have nearly driven out the middle ground. Thus a recent offering of “English” courses at a local community college consisted of a bunch of sections of “freshperson” English, one course in Shakespeare, two sections of “Sexism in the Humanities,” and one section of “Women in Literature.” The local humanists had little to say, apparently; and this skewed representation was approved by the administration of a public institution of higher learning.