Washington and Lee Curriculum Change Forces DEI Compliance

New curriculum and requirements continue to dumb down Washington and Lee standards

By Neely Young, ‘66

I believe in the concept of a core curriculum based on Western Civilization and the Judeo-Christian tradition. This does not mean that other civilizations and traditions should not be studied, but that there should be a primary focus on the tradition which has most formed and informed our culture.

Certain courses ought to be required in college, despite the Advanced Placement (AP) classes offered in high schools these days. The core curriculum should focus on the classic subjects of English, History, Math, Science, and Foreign Language. This might even be expanded to include an introduction to Fine Arts, Religion/Philosophy, Economics/Political Science. I support electives, but only after individuals have taken those required courses and demonstrated competence in these areas. 

Such a model will prepare individuals for a diverse and global society without expanding the curriculum to include a number of esoteric and questionable courses, subjects, and areas of emphasis such as DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).

Some will remark that my analysis and recommendations are naive or out of date. However, many colleges and universities across the country have maintained or adopted the concept of a core curriculum. These include St. John's College (Maryland and New Mexico), the University of Chicago, Columbia University, Providence College, and several others.

It would appear that W&L’s curriculum committee did not even consider the concept of a core curriculum or consult colleges and universities which have adopted such a model. Likewise, the new model is heavy on what I would call "political correctness" and fashionable academic vagueness. Let us examine this new curriculum, as reported by the Ring-tum Phi, beginning with the one element with which I agree.

Every student, whether they have taken AP courses in foreign language or not, should be required to take at least two language courses at W&L. Until now, students could have tested out of this requirement. The study of foreign languages is an essential part of a liberal arts education and a preparation for a global society.  A new student could continue with a language which he or she has studied in high school or begin a new language.

Moving on to things with which I disagree, the proficiency test in swimming should continue to be required as it might save one's own life or that of another. This test has not definitively been removed yet, and I hope it stays. If one is not proficient, he or she can take the Fundamental Swimming course (PE-100) and learn a life-saving skill.

The new curriculum changes the names of subject or skill areas. This accomplishes nothing and may lead to even less proficiency. For example, changing the name of "Fine Arts" to some gobbledygook term like "Creative Making" is silly and not even grammatically correct. What does this term even mean?

Getting rid of terms such as Science and Math may even be dangerous. These terms convey the concept of specific knowledge, skill, and competence necessary for life. The new terms are much vaguer and less quantitative. The course titles of Math and Science have been used since at least the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution to convey specific forms of mastery. There is absolutely no need to change them. Maintaining the previous terms will not hinder interdisciplinary study in any way.

Professor Katharine Shester is quoted in the Ring-tum Phi article as saying that the new categories "articulate the skills, abilities, and dispositions [whatever this means] that students want and need, parents want and need, and employers want and need." How does she know? Has she conducted in-depth analysis and surveys of the various groups? Even she admits that students were not very involved in this process.

Could the same be true for parents and prospective employers? I was an employer of teachers for many years, and I would certainly rather see someone with a major in math rather than one in something like "Logical Thinking." I would want to hire an art teacher rather than a teacher in "Creative Making."

In light of declining competencies and test scores in many of these areas in recent years, we need to "get back to the basics" and renew our focus on essential courses – particularly in the first year of college study.

I have reserved my strongest criticism for last. I strongly oppose all courses and initiatives – required or not – in areas like “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” “cultural context,” and “perspectives seminars.” Current students do not need to be “educated” by an older faculty in these areas. The students are already immersed in a global, diverse culture and probably understand it better than the faculty.

Such “woke” courses take time away from what I have called the core curriculum. Simply teach a classic liberal arts education and allow open and full discussion of these topics in the classroom.

Additionally, considering faculty political, social, and cultural leanings, it is clear that all such subjects will be taught from one perspective, i.e., that of the political left. There will be little, or no viewpoint diversity allowed in the consideration of these topics.   

Many of the changes which the curriculum committee has recommended and will implement next year shall, I fear, lead to a further dumbing down of the curriculum. Perhaps worse, the courses and requirements in diversity, equity, inclusion, etc. may devolve into simple political indoctrination and propaganda. University leadership should require an examination of alternative curricular models in order to create a balanced approach to this topic. 

Neely Young graduated W&L with a degree in history in 1966. He received his Master’s and Ph.D. in History from Emory University in 1975, and has taught at both a high school and collegiate level. He was the Founding Headmaster of two Atlanta-based private schools, and has authored two books and numerous articles on slavery, anti-slavery, and colonization in the South.

The opinions expressed in this magazine are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position of The Spectator, or any students or other contributors associated with the magazine. It is the intention of The Spectator to promote student thought and civil discourse, and it is our hope to maintain that civility in all discussions.