Putting the ‘U.S.’ in Gen Ed

With the unveiling of the new report on General Education, Harvard is poised to forge a path different than Yale and Princeton, and make unlikely bedfellows with the State University of New York system and George Mason University by mandating a course on the subject of the United States. As one of the general education categories replacing the unpopular Core and its "ways of knowing" approach, "The United States: Historical and Global Perspectives" is a welcomed component of a new curriculum.

Like the Core, the new proposed curriculum will still require students to take two historically-oriented classes in order to graduate. Under current system, students are required to study both long-term trends and more isolated events and phenomena (Historical Studies A and B respectively). In its recast form, though, the curriculum wisely discards this temporal division and instead opts for a geographical one: between the US and the world.

If the aim is to equip students for life outside of the academy, content must take precedence over method. By jettisoning the focus on historical approaches, the new requirement opens the possibility of choosing from a variety of disciplines with subject matter as the ultimate criterion for inclusion in the list of approved courses. History courses outside of Robinson Hall are not neglected; the report cites courses from current history, sociology and Social Analysis offerings as ones that would fulfill the requirement.

A requirement in U.S. history may disconcert those who fear a repeat of high school civics or AP U.S. history. But the goal is not to ensure that each undergraduate can recount a narrative of America’s past. A rudimentary understanding of American institutions and history will be the common starting point, not the end goal of the proposed classes. The College’s current U.S. history courses, such as American constitutional history and the history of American capitalism, are taught at a level of rigor and depth few would have encountered in high school.

Some might contend that a required course in U.S. history smacks of nationalism, because it gives the same weight to studying one country as to studying the rest of the world. If Harvard is to train undergraduates as "global citizens" should it not concentrate on understanding other cultures?

But most Harvard undergraduates (including the 10 percent that are international) will work and reside in the United States. Thus, understanding the roots of current religious, cultural and political trends in this country will help students navigate their personal and professional lives. Courses on, say, the history of race relations or "Manifest Destiny" would inform contemporary debates (and votes) concerning affirmative action and U.S. foreign policy. America’s global preeminence—economically and militarily—is used as a justification for teaching about the U.S. around the world; it should justify teaching about the U.S. at home as well.

Under the heading of the "The United States: Historical and Global Perspectives," the proposed requirement mandates that courses explore the history of American institutions and practices in addition to their global contexts. While we lend our full support to the creation and selection of courses that employ comparative methods, this approach should not come at the expense of being able to explore the U.S. on its own terms. The scope of the U.S. history category should be broadened such that courses focusing predominately on the U.S. (such as Gov 1510, "American Constitutional Law") fit in as well. We trust that students who take a course on the United States will be able to later draw comparisons with other countries.