Back to "

How Harvard Rules

There is a final point that needs to be made about the essential conservatism of a Harvard education. Regardless of the Political affiliation of the faculty, the dominant epistemology at Harvard (and elsewhere) precludes critical consciousness. Princeton's Richard Falk explains:

The real conservatism of American universities is what I would call epistemological--what constitutes knowledge, what is important for people to learn. What I feel higher education in general is doing, not only here, is preparing people to be successful in a capitalist society but not to be very good citizens, not to understand wider issues, deeper issues, connections between things. So it pacifies. It breeds inordinate respect for experts, regards problems as complex beyond one's own skill, and places tremendous virtue on professionalism and on the acceptance of a certain "realist" view that regards all the fundamental issues as basically unchangeable.

Falk's point about the inability of elite educational institutions to help people think critically and creatively is well taken. The passivity engendered has fatal consequences, literally. This is a world that stands by as 50,000 children die unnecessarily every day; where 100 million children suffer from protein deficiencies that threaten them with mental retardation; in which tin miners in Bolivia have a life expectancy of 35 years due to tuberculosis and silicosis; where South Africa, which spends seven times more per white pupil than black, ends up with one medical doctor for every 17,000 people living in its black "homelands"; that witnesses over one million people per year in the Third World severely poisoned by pesticides; where Paraguay slaughter Indians with machetes in order to save bullets, and which business leaders who marvel about conditions in the Dominican Republic, where U.S. multinationals pay workers 25-50 cents per hour and rely on local police terror to stave off unionization. "

It is all right to tell students about the crimes of Joseph Stalin, the Nazis, and perhaps even Idi Amin. But any scholars who stray from their specializations by making too much of a point of explaining US actions and the aiding and abetting of such aforementioned butchery and suffering can anticipate a chilly reception in the faculty locker room. While the universities blather on about the greatness of Western civilization, an individual who would dare confront students with the seamier side of this world order is likely to be regarded as a fringe screwball, to be politely dismissed as "utopian," or, worse yet, "a mere ideologue."

-- John Trumphour, How Harvard Rules, 1989

Outlines responding to "How Harvard Rules"

1. Thesis: Harvard (or a high College education) Universitys are conservative and does not make the students conscious and aware for the problems of the whole world.

SP 1: The concentration and awareness on the political problems would hinder the students to concentrate on their subjects.

SP 2: The students have a better chance to become successfull in their job when they do not think/care about the problems of other people.

SP 3: Today life is egoistic, so the students also have to be egoistic and only care about their own lifes. For this only the connections between things and problems are important for them.

2. Thesis: Students educated at American elite universities are short-sighted and uncritical towards present-day problems of this world.

SP1: They condemn the crimes of Stalin and the Nazis, but dubious actions of their own state remain unquestioned.

SP 2: They believe that Western civilization is great without thinking about its negative consequences for the Third World.

SP 3: They don't see in how far they could act against injustice, famine, fraud and other problems.

3. Thesis: A high College education does not necessairily make someone a better person.

SP 1: Although students are being tought facts about life, critical consciousness is often left out.

SP 2: Theoretical knowledge is not always followed by acts supporting this knowledge.

SP 3: Educated people often think of themselves as "better", depriving others.

SP 4: Justifying actions of one's country - as being tought in class - leads to ignoration of others' point of view.

My comments:

1. Why use the word "conservative" here? Falk uses it in a particular way. If it is not part of your thesis, that is, if you don't intend to explain it, don't use it in your thesis statement. The rest of the thesis summarizes Falk's (and Trumphour's) opinion, so you agree that what they say about elite universities is true. But what is your point of view? Is this situation good or bad, and why? SP 1 and 2 seem to be a defense of the universities. If so, they should begin with something like "This educational philosophy is good because..." SP 3 seems to be a generalization of 1 and 2. Does it deserve a separate paragaph? The last sentence in SP 3 is not clear.

2. Thesis and SP 1-2 straight from the text. (See remarks above.) SP 3 is also in the text, and does not support the thesis as stated.

3. This thesis is also very close to the main point of the text, but by focussing on the idea of "a better person," it shows some promise of going beyond the text (which is the task). SP 3 would fit better in the introduction to the thesis statement. ("Depriving others" is not clear.) SP 1 builds on a point made in the text, and should focus on explaining why critical consciousness makes a "better" person (which is not explained in the text). SP 2 and SP 4 are not clear.