发布时间：2020-12-11 热度：
Sociology Assignment不会写就找Sociology Assignment代写,社会学assignment代写,社会学作业代写,只需联系我们即可完成高质量的Sociology Assignment 代写 ...
The Case for a Western Civilization
Requirement at Stanford
“To be an American is about something more than what we
look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship.
What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal -–
that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to
make of our lives what we will.”
Excerpt from President Obama’s national announcement of new
immigration reforms, **November 20, 2014.
Introduction
Liberals cheered and conservatives howled when President Obama
unveiled his executive order on immigration. But even the
President’s most zealous critics cannot contest that the American
creed transcends “what we look like, or what our last names are, or
how we worship.” Instead, we define ourselves by the ideals we
cherish; by the values, such as equal opportunity and individual
initiative, that President Obama invoked because he knew they
HOME ABOUT DONATE
would resonate with millions of diverse Americans.
The fifty-six signatories of the Declaration of Independence did not
conjure these values from midair. Centuries of history forged them.
A story of Western Civilization is a history of ideals that guide the
Western world, and increasingly, the entire globe. The Western
narrative, exalted by virtue and shamed by sin, contextualizes our
society.
Western education should tell this narrative. Knowledge of Western
values, systems, and institutions prepares students to live, work,
and study in Western society, and empowers students to change it
when necessary. But Stanford University, an institution purportedly
at the pinnacle of higher education, fails its students. Stanford does
not require a humanities course that contextualizes our society, and
the ramifications transcend the Farm. Our alumni innovating in
Silicon Valley, making policy in Washington, and investing on Wall
Street lack the historical knowledge necessary to grasp their actions’
implications and responsibly shape the future.
National debates erupted over Stanford’s decision to remove
Western Culture requirements during the 1980s. We believe the
University must reignite a national debate and reinstate a Western
Civilization requirement. Therefore, the Stanford Review is
petitioning to place an initiative on the undergraduate spring ballot
urging the Faculty Senate to instate a two-quarter Western
Civilization requirement, replacing Thinking Matters. The initiative
text reads:
“In accordance with Stanford’s commitment to educating its
students, and in recognition of the unique role Western culture has
had in shaping our political, economic, and social institutions,
Stanford University should mandate that freshmen complete a twoquarter Western Civilization requirement covering the politics,
history, philosophy, and culture of the Western world.”
In this manifesto, we will advocate for a requirement focused on
only one civilization and explain why this civilization should be
Western, answering objections along the way. We thank you for
taking the time to reflect on this serious matter, and remind you
that a signature on the petition is not necessarily a support of
Western Civilization requirements. It is a signature in support of
giving yourself and your classmates the opportunity to debate and
voice their opinion on an important part of our education.
Defining a Western Civilization requirement
Western societies forged literature from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar
to Du Bois’ Black Reconstruction in America; technologies from the
steam engine to the Internet; and values like free speech, due
process, skepticism of authority, rationalism, and equality under the
law. A mere two quarters would impart this history to generations
of students, documenting the stories of Western nations, politics,
culture, philosophy, economics, literature, art, values, and science
from Ancient Greece to the present.
Students would immerse themselves in the writings of Homer,
Plato, Locke, Douglass, and de Beauvoir. The scientific revolutions
hundreds of Stanford students use would gain historical context. We
would lament the horrors of slavery and oppression – and applaud
those who fought for freedom.
An education in crisis
We do not wish to ignite unnecessary controversy. But interrelated
trends at Stanford, both recent and long-term, compel us to act now
to reinstate a Western Civilization requirement.
First, Stanford students lack the historical context necessary to
grasp the implications of their technological innovations. During the
recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland, business,
government, and academic leaders discussed how the fusion of
artificial intelligence, 3D printing, biotech, autonomous vehicles,
and drones will lead to social, economic, and political
transformations. An Oxford University study projects digitization
imperils 47% of U.S. jobs. Whether you believe robots will
complement or replace human labor, it is impossible to deny these
innovations’ colossal impact.
Businesses and governments will have to rethink their foundational
paradigms. And Silicon Valley – armed with Stanford graduates –
will drive these changes. Some students will design new
technologies and launch new businesses; others will craft policy
around their use. Some will find themselves at the intersection of
these areas, as Apple does today in its opposition to granting the FBI
access to a terrorist’s iPhone.
Western civilization, more so than any other, unleashes disruptive
technology on the world; and Western history brims with examples
of technological revolutions and their effects on warfare, politics,
culture, economics, and poverty. Technologists and policymakers
working on driverless cars, for example, would surely benefit from
knowledge of how transportation innovations impacted
urbanization patterns, employment, and culture.
But these future business and government leaders will not have this
insight. 59% of Stanford’s Class of 2019 intends to major in
engineering. These students will not know the history that society
needs them to grasp. Stanford must equip these students with the
knowledge necessary to attain “direct usefulness in life”, as our
Founding Grant requires.
The problem of engineers uninformed about Western history
closely relates to a second, broader problem: the rise of academic
populism. Universities empower students to select their own
courses of study, and for good reason. People have diverse passions
and skills. Yet Stanford’s majors have core classes because they
recognize that education requires some paternalism. In many
instances, educators must tell students what they need to learn to
master a field.
However, academic populism ironically reigns supreme for
Stanford’s WAYS (general education) requirements. Tens, even
hundreds, of classes satisfy each WAYS specification. Stanford tells
students what they need to learn before they can choose upper-level
classes within their majors; it should do the same for the rest of its
students’ education. Students need help to determine what they
should learn for future careers. In an email to the Stanford Review,
Stanford Law School Professor and former Tenth Circuit Judge
Michael McConnell wrote:
“I have taught law students for more than thirty years. In recent
years I have noticed that many students have little or no familiarity
with the political, intellectual and cultural history that shaped the
American legal tradition. I’ve encountered students who have never
heard of Hobbes and Locke, do not know the causes of the American
Revolution, are unfamiliar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates,
haven’t a clue about Progressivism or the New Deal, don’t know
what separates Protestants and Catholics, and have only the vaguest
sense what race relations were like before the Civil Rights Act of
1964. One thing a great university provides is education about what
educated people should learn.”
Finally, debates on campuses over issues such as sexual assault
policies, protest rights, and faculty statements often feature
arguments over principles such as free speech. Reasonable people
disagree over how this right should be weighed relative to others.
But both those who invoke free speech and those who value other
concerns more have little historical context for why people care
about free speech, and why it is a fiercely debated cornerstone of
Western society. Without understanding the moral and logical
dimensions of past disputes, students risk trivializing opposition in
making sweeping changes to campus policy.
Stanford needs a requirement that focuses on a single
civilization
As one of America’s leading universities, Stanford can prompt a
national conversation on humanities, and benefit students in the
process. Stanford should instate a common civilization
requirement, mandatory for every non-SLE student.
Social awareness arises from a common set of values and norms.
Societies neither function nor prosper without shared beliefs,
values, or customs. Even if one disagrees with these principles and
traditions, reform cannot occur without understanding the
historical context in which they arose.
Moreover, communities with common experiences and narratives
benefit students. The entire residential SLE community reads Dante
and Homer just as countless other students constantly discuss
CS106A; most of Stanford’s population has told Karel the Robot to
move right, and correspondingly people are willing to discuss CS
openly. Stanford’s political apathy partially stems from a lack of
shared context and community: students are not exposed to the key
histories and contexts that surround important institutions and
issues.
This is not to say that every common experience will promote
discussion and action; people do not spend much time discussing
the common ground they walk on. But a common civilization
requirement touches on countless issues that deeply impact
students, all but ensuring discussion. A class encompassing the
history of multiple fields would promote interdisciplinary dialogue
and intellectual exchange. Conversations would flow from lecture
hall to the dining hall.
Many students might favor a common civilization or culture
requirement if the course covered multiple civilizations. We
contend, however, that a World Culture course is reasonable only if
it supplements a requirement focusing almost entirely on a single
civilization. Broad survey courses that attempt to cover several
cultures have serious drawbacks.
First, teaching quality would suffer in a civilization survey course.
The tenure system rewards professors who specialize and make
incremental improvements in niche fields. Professors have little
incentive to master an extraordinarily broad field. A narrower
emphasis on a single culture would not entirely fix this problem,
but would increase the probability of finding compelling and
knowledgeable teachers.
