LETTERS
To the Editor:
Gerald GraWs solution to the
debate O\'er the future of the hu–
manistic studies
(PH
2, 1989) sounds
eminently sane and sensible until one
gi\'es it
a
closer look. Professor Grafl
proposes that instead of continuing the
current standoff (between the univel-–
salist ideals of traditional education and
the more particularist approaches that
have entered the academy since the
sixties) , we instead incorporate all
points of view into the undergraduate
curriculum, making the debate itself
available
to
students and lett ing it be
part of their education.
But those who really
GilT
about
the content or education cannot
countenance this solution, for some or
the same reasons that most
knowledgeable people ca nnot coun te–
nance the teaching of creationism as a
scientific
theory alongside
evolutionism. This is because on the
ba is of the a\ailab le e\'idence
creationism does not stack up as a
reputable intellectual theory. Likewise,
the new particularist approaches. often
based on
parli Ini.,
and resistant
to
demands for evidencc , logic, and so on,
are not valid or 1I'0nhy intellectual
approaches. They have gained
entrance into the academy through
intellectual and political bullying, not
through persuasion. Also, to those
concerned about the contcnt of
education rather than simple fe)rmal
solutions, not all approaches can
coexist so easi ly and expansively and
ceremoniously as Professor Graff
seems to reel. Some cancel each other
out. Once you have appreciated Vir–
ginia Woolfs idea of the need
1'01-
the
aesthetic transcendence of personal
grievance in literature, fe)r example,
t he feminist aesthetic of deliberate
emphasis on personal grievance can
look prelly mean-spirited, limited and
even raise.
The stakes are too high in the
academy to permit simple cosmetic
solutions. There is a content invoh ed,
<.Inc! a casual pluralisl11 dissolves it,
making it appear as if all ideas are of
equal worth when they are nol.
To
the Editor:
Carol Iannone
"Jew York , :'\ew York
I am writing to express Illy
exasperation over the often-repeated
argument , stated again by Doris
Lessing
(PH
3, 19H9), in the Rushdie
a!Iili ... Th is is a kind or half-truth not
quite worthy of a writer of Doris
l.essing·s standing , who
ha~
a
reputation fe)r her learning as well as
fe)r hel' accomplishments as an out–
standing lIovelist. If one thought of
making an impression on Khomeini
and his followers , the argul11ent is
bound
to
f~lil
because it does not meet
the case.
It seems to me that the chal–
lenge of the Ayotollah li es elsewhere
and is not met by talking or freedom of
