COMMENT
FURTHER NOTES TOWARD A DEFINITION OF
THE CANON AND THE CURRICULUM
In an introduction to a partisan book about the current
debates over the curriculum, Gerald Graff, I am sorry to say, has
moved away from his former cogent criticism of the new academic
trends to a more sympathetic attitude. But he has raised a number of
difficult and pertinent questions that those who defend a more tradi–
tional curriculum cannot ignore .
Essentially, Graff argues that the university is not and cannot
be a monolithic institution, that it reflects the pluralism of beliefs
that exist in the society as a whole, and that no one person or group
has the authority to enforce any single point of view. He also main–
tains, rather persuasively, that the university should provide the
students with discussions of divergent and competing beliefs - which
is the essence of education . There are, however, a number of other
problems that Graff ignores, and that neither the traditionalists nor
the radicals have faced.
1. It is true that a single set of beliefs or methods of teaching
cannot be prescribed, for almost by definition the university is made
up of scholars and thinkers with divergent views, which are argued
out in academic circles and in the intellectual life of the society. It is
obviously also desirable that students should be made aware of dif–
ferent schools of thought and approaches to various subjects. In fact,
this is what good teachers have always done. On the other hand, a
recognition of legitimate disagreements does not preclude objections
to illegitimate positions based on factional and political interests.
2. It should be fairly obvious that those who would cut down
the curriculum and substitute the study of feminist, third-world,
black, gay, and left-wing texts represent special interests, not schol–
arly ones. The texts they would like to substitute for the classics have
not been selected by a consensus of the literary and intellectual com–
munity, but by groups challenging the consensus that has estab–
lished the traditions and the classics we have inherited.
3. The basic question, and one that has been blurred in the
academic debates, is how the classics have been chosen in the past.
Certainly, they have not been chosen by administrative or faculty
committees . To be sure , the curricula as a whole, and individual
