COMMENT
177
writers like Graff and some revisionists have an argument - but not
always the right one . For the solution is not to supplant the tradi–
tional curriculum with trendy authors and subjects .
It
is true, as some of the anti-traditionalists claim, that the
classics, particularly as taught by the sweeping Great Books surveys,
may not have meaning for a vast number of unprepared students.
But, then, neither will teaching them the intricacies of deconstruc–
tion, particularly with a Marxist or feminist literary slant. This is the
problem created by mass education in a culture given to a populist
version of democracy. And the pluralism advocated by the radicals
has more to do with the academic pursuit of their own interests than
with educating the enormous variety of students created by undif–
ferentiated mass education .
Indeed, one of the main problems ignored by both sides of the
curriculum dispute is that of the phenomenal growth of mass educa–
tion. Those ideas and those works-and the obligatory questions of
how to think about them - that can be presented to qualified
students at the same time do not reach or interest the less qualified
students, who presumably relate to more current books and the
more recent trends of the popular culture.
Yet few educators challenge egalitarian pieties by making
distinctions in the student body that might lead to different courses
of study and types of education . Clearly, those who want to make
the curriculum more up-to-date , more relevant, more radical, are
pursuing a political agenda masked by educational and liberating
claims.
* * *
A pamphlet presenting the case of what for a lack of a bet–
ter term might be referred to as the radical or revisionist position in
the controversy over the curriculum has just been put out by a group
of directors of humanities institutes. It represents the consensus of a
conference of directors sponsored by the American Council of
Learned Societies. It is sophisticated, learned, and its tone is reason–
able and persuasive. But, in my opinion, it is somewhat disingenu–
ous and sophistical .
There are two things wrong with the way the antitraditional
case is argued. In general, the picture that is presented of the theor–
ies and practices of the academic radicals is an ideal one, far from
the realities of the academic situation. When the pamphlet says that
the classics, along with the entire cultural past-and of course , the
