DAVID SIDORSKY
717
foc us of the few ho urs of classroom discussio n.
R ega rdless of the ac tual meanings of any of the classic texts, the in–
te rpreti ve strategy of reading th e text as an express io n of its mo rall y
fl awe d soc ial ge nes is guarantees its exhibiti o n in th e ca talogue of
W es tern intelle ctu al oppress io n . T hu s, the multi cultural foc us o n
curri cul ar expansio n shifts wh en it is proj ected thro ugh th e prism of the
legitimatio n of th e cano n for the study o f the culture o f the designated
groups o f victims. Th e character of th e uni versity whi ch emerges after its
adopti o n o f multi culturalism is no t th at of the class ical uni ve rsity
augm ented by an expanded curri culum but o f an instituti o n that has
changed its approac h to teac hing, to th e independent apprec iati o n o f
th e humaniti es, and to freedom o f inqui ry. So, as prev io usly claimed ,
impli cit in th e multi cultural program fo r expansio n o f wh at is to be
taught is an argument about how wo rks are
to
be taught. Instru cti o n in
the W estern humaniti es should defer to a "geneti c" redu cti onist interpre–
ta ti o n of the classic texts while a politi cized advocacy app roac h is to be
adopted fo r the pri vil eged new wo rks.
T he logic of th e argument is confirmed , to a degree, by obse rvati on .
T he deve lo pment o f a large number o f programs o f interdi sciplinary
studi es in whi ch the preferred interpretati ons o f pri vil eged texts are shel–
tered by a cohesive fac ul ty community can be documented at many cam–
puses. T here have also been some vigorous campaigns fo r the adopti o n
of po litica lly correct texts in th e co re curri culum. Su ch adoptio n is pre–
sented as legitimati on o f the po int of view of th e wo rk , whi ch then be–
comes sa feguarded from di ssentin g criti cism . The empiri cal investigati on ,
presumably an anthropology o f the classroom , whi ch would demo nstrate
how strong or how weak these tendencies are in th e country's uni ve rsi–
ti es, does no t ex ist. For th e pro tec tio n of the traditi o n of free inqui ry in
the traditio nal uni ve rsity virtually excludes undertaking the kind of inves–
ti ga tive resea rch whi ch could demonstrate th e ex tent of abuses of free
inqui ry by classrooom politi ciza ti on in the contemporary uni ve rsity.
Illstitil tiolla
I T ra
IlsfOYlIla tioll
Fo r the most part , th e preceding acco unt has deve loped an analyti c
po rtrait or lin e drawing o f a complex moving pi cture o f instituti o nal
change. Th e practi cal qu es ti on , whatever the prec ise degree o f truth or
validi ty in the analysis o r portrait, is wheth er th e directi o n of the current
movement ca n shift to resto rati o n or reintegrati o n of the histo ric uni–
versity of obj ecti ve scholarship and free inqui ry, o r whether it will con–
tinu e its current trends to politi ciza ti o n. An evaluati o n of the fac to rs
that are usually cited as sources for resto rati o n can clari fY the prese nt sit–
uati o n .
Apart from th e co ntinuing efforts by small gro ups within th e aca-
