Core Does Not Need Replacement, Just Fixing

To the editors:

Travis R. Kavulla ’06 writes in The Crimson of Sept. 30 that the Core is badly dumbed down and fails to serve its stated intent to teach “approaches” to knowledge (Column, "The Hollowed Core"). But Kavulla ignores successful aspects of the Core in his zeal to discredit it.

The Core, whatever its identifiable problems, is not in need of an overhaul so much as a tweak. And it is certainly not in need of an overhaul along the lines of Kavulla’s suggestions. Am I indeed a more liberally educated person if I take Philosophy 168 instead of Michael Sandel’s “Justice”? Or do I know a lot about Kant while having missed out on Aristotle, Locke, Mill and Rawls?

Declaring that Harvard students ought to be taught a certain body of knowledge is very nice thing to say, but determining what is valuable enough to be included in that body of knowledge is inherently contentious. Better to let Harvard professors propose their own valuations, in the form of a course description in the catalog and a syllabus during shopping period, and let the Harvard student decide.

David L. Richmond ’06

Sept. 30, 2003