The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 13, Ed. 1 Friday, November 22, 1991 Page: 11 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1991 11
e Turns Vicious:
ness" and its Critics
rge Rupp
revision" (P- 27).
the partem of what I chink can fairly be called
ford curruulum revision. But much of the discussion
lenta I ly in is informed or even deliberately distorted
lion of it is unavoidable for any engagement of the
leal correctness. In any case, in view of its widespread
T>rd case may serve to focus the issues involved in the
is for allegedly undermining Western traditions,
pne of the American universities that has a long-
1 of cour-es in Western civilization—as have, for
lumbid Jniversity, and the University of Chicago,
s required that freshmen select one out of eight quite
Ir tracks i he names of the tracks indicate how great
lc been i td are: Conflict and Change; Great Works;
pnd So i ty; Structured Liberal Education; Philoso-
ferature md the Arts. In short, even before the
there v is no single Western culture course offered
|d faculty ask force submitted recommendations for
prog- i i. The recommendations were based on a
pd over .1 aost two years and were not, as some media
i ha si response to student demonstrations. (The
|ents wht along with Jesse Jackson, chanted "Hey,
got ro c >" was, not surprisingly, irresistible to the
jfor the cl anges.) In the spring of 1988 the Stanford
ll of the -commendations from the task force, for
19 acader ic year.
le, the ch nges in the requirement are very modest,
linue in t le new program. Only one—Conflict and
Jtnitia! y e :r of the new program, one track was added
|tled "Hut pe and the Americas," this track received
In tha! ;rst year, it enrolled fewer than fifty of the
It also attracted the most media attention because it
| from tht: previous Western culture program.
anges in the overall structure of the requirement, the
Ijnificanr >hift from the courses that preceded it. For
to be v ks common to all eight tracks, the number
readings in the predecessor program. To be specific,
/e author or works (the Bible, Aristotle, Shakespeare,
^ned it! 11 eight tracks; three more (Augustine,
in sevo , of the eight tracks; four more (Descartes,
ito) in si v tracks; and five more (Euripides, Dante,
|er) in fiv< tracks.
reductior in the number of common readings is the
|iat rationale is signalled in the new name for the
Values (GIV). Not only the one new sequence—
jt also rlv continuing tracks are required to include
In-Europe in culture. Each track is also expected to
] gender and to study works by women and persons of
canon if the great works of Western culture is
| often we e not included in the predecessor program
contanv J not a single entry from a non-Western
, of coll i!
[he specif i strengths and weaknesses of this particular
d. It is m ead to examine this revision as one of the
|ces in indictments of colleges and universities for
ks currio !a and repudiating teaching and learning
ied cit hose charges the verdict on the revised
not one if guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
f how re; onable are the doubts is provided in the
ofessot it hilosophy at the University of California-
w essay published in the December6,1990,NewYork
les the s es involved in recent curricular debates. In
ticai of ; ndencies in humanities scholarship and
ature at id elated departments. He is at the same time
all chant terization of intellectual tendencies in the
11 report in his Tenured Radicals. This combination of
garnered him repeated accolades from the critics of
)ite his sharp critique of trends in the humanities and
rh Kimball's journalistic attack, Searle offers a judg-
Stanford i urriculum that is not only exculpatory but
is his v r: ict on the seven tracks that have continued
ram:
rracks loik to me like a slight improvement on the
Iture, 1xh a use they retain enough of the core readings
se of flu original is not lost, and at the same time they
tngs from outside the European tradition, (p. 39.)
commentary on the eighth track, Europe and the
id evaluation of this sequence offer a refreshingly
nowled)•( s the potential for distortion in the course
>st hysteru al exaggerations featured in attacks on the
< tended . iteration is necessary to capture a sense of the
e lerneni s of European canon remain, but they are read
Anient an American Indian, and African-American
resents ;> genuinely radical change from the earlier
ost objei tions from Kimball and other commentators,
me can make a fairly strong case for the new course on
>f eight tracks, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have
ropean civilization is taught as simply one civilization
not seem ro rne at all worrying that Aristotle and
Tocqueville are taught along with Frantz Fanon. Of course, as with all courses it
ail depends on how the course is taught. Yet even if we assume that the organizers
have political goals, as I suppose they do, one of the most liberating effects of
"liberal education" is in coming to see one's own culture as one possible form of
life and sensibility among others; and the reading lists for the new course suggest
that such an outcome is likely. Also, it is important to keep reminding ourselves
that students are not just passive receptacles. In my experience, students are good
at arguing back at professors, and indeed that is in large part what professors arc
for: to argue with. So my general impression from observing events at Stanford is
that reports of the demise of "culture," Western or otherwise, in the required
Western course at Stanford are grossly exaggerated. If I were a freshman at
Stanford, I might well be tempted to take "Europe and the Americas." (p. 39.)
Searle's commentary is illuminating because it helps to sharpen the focus on
what most troubles thoughtful critics of developments in recent scholarship and
teaching in the humanities. It does so by indicating clearly what are not the central
issues. Not the central issue is inclusion of works from outside European traditions,
even if the result is a smaller number of common Western readings in core courses.
Indeed, this inclusion may well contribute greater awareness of the distinctive
identity of Western traditions through comparison and contrast with others. Also
not central as an issue in itself is the teaching of European traditions "as simply one
civilization among others" or "one's own culture as one possible form of life and
sensibility among others." Nor is the central issue a stance of criticism over against
Western traditions. In sum, pluralism as such, even if it eventuates in criticism of
established beliefs and practices, is no more the crux of the matter in considering
the role of Western traditions in curricula than it is in addressing the challenges
of multiculturalism. Instead of pluralism as such, the central issue is disagreement
as to the very nature of the intellectual enterprise, which in turn entails quite
different approaches to claims to express or represent truth.
The Question of Truth
This contention—namely, that the crucial issue in debates not only about core
curricula but also about multiculturalism entails disagreements as to the status of
truth claims—no doubt fuels all of our apprehensions that whatever may be
concrete or down-to-earth in this array of concerns is about to evaporate into a fog
of abstractions. I acknowledge that danger. But I am also convinced that elucidat-
ing alternative approaches to truth claims will in turn clarify such contentious
subjects as codes to regulate offensive speech and the relationship of pedagogy to
advocacy.
Certainly not all of the developments packaged together with the label
"political correctness" in fact constitute a single and unified movement. The
internal contradictions in the ways critics characterize political correctness are at
first glance nowhere more evident than on the question of access to truth. On the
one hand, political correctness is charged with subscribing to an unqualified
relativism, notably in such trends as deconstructionism, a relativism that collapses
the very distinction between true and false. On the other hand, political correct-
ness is alleged to be completely intolerant of deviations from proper attitudes on,
for example, issues of race, gender, and class.
Yet despite initial impressions, there are significant connections among quite
disparate developments and apparently contradictory positions. Deconstruct ion ist
literary theory does seem unavoidably to entail an unqualified relativism insofar
as it succeeds in allowing no judgments as to adequacy from outside the interpreted
texts themselves. This relativism is reinforced by attacksonso-calIed"logocentrism,"
which by definition resist any appeals to rational criteria and indeed portray
Western rationalism as oppressive. That line of attack is consistent with feminist
and ethnic criticism of the dominance of elite white male culture. From there
follows insistence on a more fairly representative curriculum. This reduction of
intellectual arguments to the influence of political constituencies in turn may be
hospitable to administratively mandated codes to regulate acceptable behavior
and even speech.
1 do not contend that all of those connections are necessary ones. But the
disparate developments that the label "pol itical correctness" packages together do
coexist in contemporary campus life and do in some ways reinforce each other.
They do so not only because they are all out of step with the prevailing consensus
in the broader society but also because they share a critical stance toward the
dominant historical patterns of interpretation of Western traditions. Insofar as
that shared critical stance is based on unqualified relativism, it is, however,
inadequate. Accordingly, a more robust approach to the question of truth may lead
to quite different areas of both agreement and disagreement.
In reading the opinion columns and articles and books of the critics of political
correctness, it is striking how consistently post-structuralist literary theory and
deconstructionism are cited as indicators of the crisis in the recent trends of
scholarship in the humanities. This frequent citation no doubt results in part from
the tendency of the various accounts to borrow, repeat, and thereby amplify the
same series of themes. It is, however, also remarkably the case that influential
discussions of such questions as the status of truth claims frequently do develop
from work in literary criticism or literary theory. Indeed, the rubric "theory" has
become a mark of distinction for members of literature depamnents who thereby
signal their conviction that their approach to interpreting texts has profound
ramifications for all attempts to understand cultural artifacts, which of course
includes any and all claims to knowledge.
There is much that is of interest in such discussions. Careful reflection on the
hermeneutics of texts in fact may illuminate other forms of knowing or claims to
truth. Examination of how a particular text has been read over time, how variously
it has been understood, and how its institutional status and cultural influence have
changed may lead to remarkable insights not only about historical developments
but also about the process of interpretation.
This ongoing work in literary theory is, moreover, broadly consonant with
other, for the most part earlier, developments in such fields as linguistics, cultural
anthropology, the sociology of knowledge, the history of science, legal theory, and
philosophy. In this range of fields there certainly are developments that reinforce
each other in undermining claims to have attained disinterested, objective, and
universal truth. In short, there is very widespread acceptance across such disci-
plines of some form of cultural relativism over against scientific positivism or other
kinds of absolutist positions.
The recognition of the fact that truth claims are historically conditioned
certainly opens up significant lines of inquiry. It calls attention to the ways in
which knowledge that is generally accepted expresses and reinforces existing
power relations, and it also questions whether and how claims to neutrality in
knowing may mask vested interests. But fruitful as such lines of inquiry may be, the
fact of cultural relativity that underlies them is scarcely a new discovery.
Nor does recognition of the fact ofcultural relativity across an impressive range
of disciplines warrant a presumption of unqualified relativism in the practice of
those disciplines. Cultural anthropology strives to understand each particular
community in its own terms. But the aim is, to use Clifford Geertz's rubric, "thick
description," characterization that captures as fully as can be attained the nuances
of the culture described. In short, there are more and less adequate interpretations,
and the relative adequacy is not independent of die data available. Perhaps no
discipline is more aware of the relativity of truth claims than the sociology of
knowledge. But here too the aim is to identify die interests and power relations
SEE RUPP, PAGE 12
Many praise speech; critical commentary unavailable
by Mark David Schoenhals
The Boston University Insitute for
Philosophy and Religion, headed by
Leroy S. Rouner, invited President
George Rupp to present a paper as
part of its twenty-third annual lecture
series, titled "On Education: Can
Virtue Be Taught?" The question,
"Can Virtue BeTaught?", comes from
Plato's Protagoras and Menos. Rupp
delivered the speech last week.
Executive Vice President and
Provost of Boston University Jon
Westling served as commentator and
delivered a prepared response which
was "strongly critical" of Rupp's
speech, according to Dean of the
School of Theology at Boston Uni-
versity Robert C. Neville. Westling
chose not to send his remarks to the
Thresher and declined to comment
Rouner said in a phone interview
that a "very lively debate" followed
Westling's remarks. Rouner said that
the debate was perhaps the result of
a misunderstand ing of Rupp's speech
by Westling and others. "It was the
liveliest discussion we have ever had
at an Institute lecture and the longest
we have ever allowed one to run,"
said Rouner.
Rouner chose to invite Rupp be-
cause of his ties to the institute from
his time in Boston and because "this
was an issue that was dear to his
heart" Given the general theme of
the series, Rupp chose to discuss
"political correctness." Rouner said
that Rupp wanted to fight the popu lar
monolithic image of "political cor-
rectness."
In a phone interview, Associate
Dean for Academic Affairs at Harvard
University Clarissa Atkinson agreed
that Rupp's speech explained how
the label 'political correctness* "cov-
ers some very different kinds of
things." She said that no one else has
published work "in dissecting the
pieces of the puzzle" and that "that's
what President Rupp accomplished
very well."
In the past, she argued, people
have tried to respond to 'political cor-
"just. untrue and silly."
Special Assistant to the President
and Associate Dean of the Divinity
School at Harvard University
Constance Buchanan said in a phone
interview that Rupp's paper "ad-
dresses the intellectual problem be-
hind the debate of so-called 'political
correctness'."The problem, shesaid,
is with "truth claims and how their
adequacy is assessed." She admired
Rupp's speech because it "lays out
that problem in intellectual terms."
Buchanan also said that
Westling's response to Rupp's speech
'It was the liveliest discussion we have ever
had at an Institute lecture and the longest we
have ever allowed one to run.'
—Leroy S. Rouner
redness' as a single entity. She said
this is misleading, since 'political
correctness" is not just one thing. As
a result of previous misunderstand-
ing, she considers earlier discussio ns
about 'political correctness' to have
been "destructive." She called Rupp's
speech a "very positive step forward"
in terms of defining the terms for
future debate.
She claimed that Westling "ig-
nored what Rupp had accomplished
in his careful work." She continued,
"[Westling] basically didn't listen to
anything that President Rupp said."
She said Westling's remarks were
was based on a misunderstanding.
"Westling did to Rupp what most
critics of 'political correctness' try to
do", she said. These critics, she ar-
gued, "want to charge that certain
new perspectives are being cel-
ebrated in the university."
She said that Rupp in fact argued
that the "celebration of any perspec-
tive has no place in the university",
because "celebration is not the busi-
ness of the university." Instead, she
said that Rupp's point was that "the
mission of the university is to chal-
lenge and critically assess all knowl-
edge without giving unquestioned
authority to any perspective."
Neville commented in a phone
interview that he believed most
people agreed with Rupp's pointabout
multiculturalism but that his section
on the Western Tradition in the cur-
riculum was "lost in the wind".
He agreed with others that
Westling "misinterpreted President
Rupp's intent "He said that "Dr. Rupp
became defensive about that" and
"defended himself brilliantly" with
quotes from his own speech.
Neville said, however, that Rupp
did fail to address Westling's criti-
cism about "the extent to which 'po-
litically correct' attitudes are assumed
a priori and therefore determine the
outcome of research and teaching
from the beginning."
Neville said that although Rupp
agreed that we shouldn't prejudice
ourselves, he did not respond to this
alleged shortcoming in his speech
adequately.
Throughout the disagreement,
noted Neville, Westling made claims
about the possibility of "knowing
things with rather great certainty,"
whereas Rupp expressed his convic-
tion that it was possible only to make
a "good case for what we believe to
be true."
About 90 people attended the lec-
ture, which was advertised in the
Boston Globe and was "free and open
to the public." Although the evening
was reported to be filled with dis-
agreement, Neville called it "a won-
derful evening." Rouner said that
"everyone professed to have had fun."
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Zitterkopf, Ann & Howe, Harlan. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 13, Ed. 1 Friday, November 22, 1991, newspaper, November 22, 1991; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245798/m1/11/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.