<p>"They accept or reject their teachers as role models more on account of the group to which they belong and less because of their individual qualities of character and intellect. And the works they study are regarded more as statements of group membership than as creations of men and women with viewpoints uniquely their own." Anyone who has perused the course catalog of a liberal-arts college -- Wesleyan's English department, for instance, offers "Chicina Lesbian Literature: Speaking in Tongues" and "Law, Race, and Literature: An Introduction to Critical Race Theory" -- will recognize what Mr. Kronman is talking about."</p>
<p>so, they studied Frida Kahlo's poetry, presumably? I don't get what's wrong with that?</p>
<p>Of course, the WSJ book reviewer, who holds up Yale's curriculum as more sensible, could just as easily have mentioned Yale courses such as "Caribbean Diasporic Literature" and "Queer Ethnographies." His argument, incidentally, erects a false dichotomy between the pursuit of broad knowledge and the specialization of professors.</p>
<p>And there are entire courses on specific authors, as well - this doesn't seem like anything more than the typical Wesleyan stereotyping as an "ultraPC school for crazy radicals". It's absurd to disregard classes that have to do with group membership - American Lit is a standard class everywhere, not because each author isn't unique, but because it makes logical sense to read many of these American authors together, see the common places where they're coming from, and the places where they differ.</p>
<p>"In such a classroom, students encounter each other not as individuals but as spokespersons instead."</p>
<p>And that's tokenism. And that's why it's helpful to have classes (academic or not - for example, Wesleyan has workshops during orientation and that RAs run) that deal with issues of identity and prejudice and social psychology so that you can be aware that it's happening, and avoid it, and appreciate people as individuals with individual viewpoints.</p>
<p>Kind of a weird example, but last year a group called "Common Ground" met to openly discuss Israel/Palestine issues. A large portion of the people who came to the meetings were Jews, and a reasonably high proportion were Arabs and/or Muslims. Originally at the meetings there was a sort of tension that came from everyone being aware of each other's ethnic/religious backgrounds, because it's such a tough issue to talk about when you have family and friends there. But then someone brought up the issue directly, how privilege was affecting the conversations we were having and how feeling tokenized was affecting the conversations we were having, and after that, in future meetings it was much less tense and people spoke their real opinions. I mean, I guess you kind of had to be there. But I just feel like is negatively called "political correctness" is actually extremely valuable for engaging in real dialogue.</p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal has a heck of a nerve talking about the devalued humanities when everyone knows the biggest impediment to studying humanities today is that a 25 y/o with a Ph.D in English Lit earns a fraction of what someone with an MBA does. Anyone care to guess what they would be worth without areas of specialization? If, all that was required to graduate from Yale was to memorize "The Wreck of The Hesperus" by rote?</p>
<p>I'd go thru brainmelt at a school where all I could take for four years were general survey courses -- "American Literature 1600-2000" etc. That would be like glorified high skul. I've looked thru a zillion course catalogs of the best schools, and they all have highly specialized courses in lots of subjects. The promise of drilling down on topics with profs who've really researched them themselves, that is the most exciting thing about applying to college, ... 'cept maybe for the coed halls.</p>