The first thrust was to include more writers of color, but once Reedies Against Racism tasted blood, they went for it all. And they got it.
Reedies Against Racism, a student group at Reed College, is demanding that the school’s Humanities 110 course remove all European texts and replace them with non-European reading materials as “reparations for Humanities 110’s history of erasing the histories of people of color, especially black people.”
Those classics that every moderately well-educated person reads in college? Racist. All white men, Europeans. And they even came up with a cool name for it.
Whitewashed curricula are worth fighting. But the Oregon college will repeat the error in the opposite direction if it decides that European and Mediterranean authors have nothing to contribute by virtue of their whiteness.
It may well be that there are brilliant books that have never been given the credit they deserve because they were outside the “accepted” genre of classic literature. Then again, the literature considered classic has survived generations of scrutiny to earn that stature. It’s not that other literature that was denied that opportunity is unworthy, though one might question whether it was denied classic stature because of racism or because it just wasn’t that good, but RAR knows where they stand.
The activists already lobbied successfully for the Hum 110 (as it is called) curriculum to be altered, through a series of protests in early April. These entailed interruptions of classes and thus clashes with other students and professors, at least one of whom understandably disagreed with the idea that the course represented “white supremacy.”
And as is they way of Reed College when confronted with protest, they collapsed into a blubbering puddle of empathy, apologizing for their racism and giving everyone a lollipop plus whatever they demanded.
Yet, this means Reed College may produce graduates lacking the foundation in the humanities shared by pretty much every other liberal arts school. The curriculum may be stodgy, old, fixed and very white, but it also serves as a common foundation shared by the educated in America. What comes of eliminating all (not some, but all) white European literature and replacing it with . . . something else?
Several professors have pushed back against the notion that the course is whitewashed or overly Eurocentric. “The idea that Hum 110 is a ‘white’ course is very strange to me,” Professor Jay Dickson tells Reed Magazine. “It presupposes that our contemporary racial categories are timeless.” Other instructors have noted that the course considers parts of Egypt and Iran within the purview of the Mediterranean, and still others argue that the label “Western” is too broad and monolithic.
There is nothing wrong with expanding the scope of literature beyond those that have achieved classic status. There’s nothing wrong with students reading lit from Iran and Egypt, or anywhere else for that matter. And there’s nothing wrong with reading classic lit written by Europeans.
To the extent RAR contends that literature by writers outside the “norm” deserves to become part of the curricula, they may well be right. There may be brilliant works written by non-Europeans which were never given their due, never given the opportunity to become our shared classics.
But what purpose is served in vilifying European writers? There is a virtue in having a shared culture, a means by which educated people can relate to each other’s understanding of great literature. And, having risen to the top of literature, the virtue of European literature is established, even if it does not exhaust all potential great literature.
Yet, RAR demands it be excised from the curricula as “reparations.” Sounds like somebody is trying to make a Faustian bargain. Will they even know what that is?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
SHG
Who the fuck was Faust? All the best.
RGK
I went to Reed and of course took Hum 110. I think the criticism that lead to the change of curriculum was valid. The course was only about Greek and Roman works, which does not give the students any insight into the rest of the world. I read about the new Hum 110 and I find it more interesting and valuable then the old. I think the Harlem and Mexico parts sound quite intriguing and enjoyable. My only concern is that it seems the bible was dropped. I think that an academic, objective study of the bible is essential to understanding a large chunk of modern society.
The point of the course is to be an academic boot camp, to get the students reading a book a week (not just select passages), to get them to present well reasoned arguments in the small class setting, and get them writing at a higher level. Reed attempts to be academically demanding and you need to kick some freshmen butt to get them there.
Is it possible that academically demanding is not what you think it is?
Perhaps the course needed change, but is race of the author a metric of an academically demanding course?
The race of the author is of course not relevant to how academically challenging it is. My point is that Hum 110 first above all is an academic boot camp, the specific readings and topics comes second. I think that understanding Mexico and Harlem is more valuable then reading yet another work from ancient Greece or Rome. Reed can still fit plenty of classical works into half a semester.
You keep saying “academic boot camp,” which suggests you’ve been well indoctrinated since that’s a meaningless phrase. Regardless, the demand is to exclude white European authors and replace them with authors of color. You need to come to grips with this. Your responses fail to deal with what’s happening here.
But when you add something like “understanding Mexico and Harlem,” are you suggesting reading one random book by a Mexican or black writer, regardless of quality, makes you “understand” anything? The naivete here is brutal.
“Academic Boot Camp” means that the course is a major jump in difficulty and academic rigor then the students are used to. You are expected to have the entire Iliad read before the first day of classes. You walk in and the assignment for the first major paper is waiting for you. There is a few minutes of introductions then notebooks out for a deep lecture of the material. And that is just the first 50 minutes of Reed. I have graduate degrees from two Big 10 schools and all of their classes are easy in comparison. There is no easy class at Reed. They will not read one random book, but many books, from cover to cover, and have lectures and professor led small group discussions where you are required to participate by formulating your arguments from a deep reading of the texts.
The new Hum 110 curriculum will still have core Greek and Roman humanities, but will add in depth sections on Mexico, from the pre-European contact to modern times, and a section on Harlem, from the migration from the south to now. I think that this new curriculum will give the students a better understanding of world culture then just reading all Greek and Roman for a year. I wish they had this course when I was at Reed, it sounds more interesting.
However, I am not a supporter of how the current Reed students went about presenting their request for changes. Being demanding and disruptive is wrong. The true Reed way would have been to write very convincing papers, organize petitions and have open debates. Get the Alumni base on their side and the issue would not even be remotely news worthy.
This doesn’t actually mean anything, grammar and typo aside. You’re doing an exceptionally poor job of showing the value of a Reed education.
I am simply trying to put the Hum 110 course in context, since it is a type of course that is not found in most colleges and universities.
I appreciate what you’re trying to do. I’m saying that this hasn’t done a very good job of it.
Molly,
While I disagree with a number of things in your comments, I’ll keep it to this; when you said ‘yet another Greek/Roman work’, you presuppose that incoming freshmen have been exposed to them in HS.
My response to that notion is ‘are you freakin’ kidding me?’. Pthygoras’ theorem is probably the closest they got to exposure to Greek philosophers. I paid attention to my kids’ HS education, and IMO Paul Simon nailed it.
Stopping here, lest I release the rant.
Regards,
Nemo
It appears that Reed has taught some of their students how to get media attention.
Note that it was a DEMAND (not a request). I think they are copycatting.
Reedies Against Racism talks the talk. But can they walk the walk?
I was going to reply with King Tut, but you already know that.
For people against racism they seem pretty fucking racist.
Only to people who aren’t true believers.