I thought I'd put off writing a reply to Morna Ha '04, Derrick Chu '04, Shirley Lin '02 and Swati Rana '02 until after I had attended the Pan-Asian Council dinner with Professor of Ethnics Studies Evelyn Hu-DeHart on Feb. 12, in case anything should come up that would significantly alter my reply. Well, I found both replies cogent and thoughtful; I very much enjoyed the dinner and even got a chance to speak to Professor Hu-DeHart, who apart from being a passionate speaker, was also a very friendly and intelligent woman. But as for the viability of ethnic studies programs (or a single program) in the curriculum, I am still unconvinced.
First, allow me to repeat: I am not opposed to the idea of having courses on ethnicity; nor do I frown upon examining existing disciplines along ethnic lines. But all this, I believe, should take place within already established disciplines -- history, government, English, anthropology, etc. As far as I know, every humanities or social science department here at Dartmouth offers classes that examine reality along such lines.
Having individual classes on ethnic issues is fine, as long as they are taught well and analyze, for the most part, well-established knowledge. But a program of study -- major or minor -- devoted entirely to ethnicity is a slightly different issue. For one, there is the question of consequences. If you allow Asian American Studies, where do you stop? I believe that my original column (The Dartmouth, Jan. 31, "Thoughts on Ethnic Studies") made this point clear. Chu and Ha bring this up at the beginning of their column (The Dartmouth, Feb. 6, "On Asian American Studies"), but do not address it. Shirley Lin and Swati Rana do not talk about it at all (The Dartmouth, Feb. 7, "Correcting a Few Assumptions").
When I was at the PAC Dinner and casually brought up the possibility of realizing Singaporean Studies -- I am fairly patriotic -- here at Dartmouth, an enthusiastic administrator, who shall remain unnamed, gushed excitedly at this prospect and seemed to hope that every country, ethnicity and minority could have its very own pet program. She did not seem to appreciate the irony in my tone of voice. Although proponents of ethnic studies, including Professor Hu-DeHart, claim that their programs are not meant to dislodge more traditional classes on Western civilization, if it gets to the point that the administrator describes above, then the traditional curriculum will invariably suffer. Dartmouth, contrary to what many people believe, does not have an infinite amount of money that it can disburse among its undergraduates.
I remain unconvinced by the claims made by both columns that AAS is a "legitimate" and "established" academic field of inquiry. According to Derrick Chu and Morna Ha, only three Ivies -- Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University -- offer AAS. They are part of "approximately 40 colleges and universities nationwide" that do so. Forty out of how many colleges and universities? And less than half the Ivy League too. Bear in mind that Brown, Penn and Cornell are all much larger than we are, with more resources to spread around. We do not follow a trend just because everyone else is doing so (in this case, not everyone else is doing so). We keep up with the times for intellectually viable reasons and with an eye out for what we already have -- i.e. the liberal arts tradition.
But what is this tradition that we are talking about? The term "ivory tower," a synecdoche for the university, tends to be used pejoratively. It implies isolation and indifference on the part of nerdy scholars pouring over dusty tomes late into the night. Dartmouth, by virtue of its location and elite status, is the quintessential ivory tower. I would like to propose a revisionist interpretation of "ivory tower." To me, it implies not indifference but disinterestedness. As Matthew Arnold puts it in "The Function of Criticism:"
"And how is criticism to show disinterestedness? By steadily refusing to lend itself to any of those ulterior, political considerations about ideas, which plenty of people will be sure to attach to them, which perhaps ought often to be attached to them but which criticism has really nothing to do with" (Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2, p. 1522).
Being in an ivory tower does not mean ignoring what goes on around us. It means looking at things from an elevated perspective, free from bias and political partisanship. That is difficult and, some would say, impossible: man is a political animal. True, but he is also an animal whose baser instincts do not always serve him well.
Professor Hu-DeHart and many others do not share my view. Their conception of liberal education misinterprets "liberal" to mean political activism and make the case that we are learning so that we can "serve minority communities after Dartmouth." For sure, there are elements of society that need changing. That can be done after one graduates or by joining the Young Democrats. But the purpose of a liberal education is to enlarge the mind of undergraduates so that they are free to pursue what they want in life. Pursuing social change is only one out of the many career choices available.
With this in mind, let us return to the question of ethnic studies. Anyone who heard Professor Hu-DeHart speak could have easily mistaken her for a political demagogue. What was supposed to be a fairly academic discussion became, at times, a polemic against "hegemonic paradigms" and, I quote, a "white supremacist society backed up by a complicit state apparatus." As an intelligent human being and a trained historian, she should learn not to make such sweeping statements without solid evidence (isolated incidences of hate crimes do not count). She seems to think that white America harbors a hidden agenda against Asian-Americans, who are on the one hand, hailed as the model minority and on the other hand, called untrustworthy and foreign (think of the Wen Ho Lee case). Shirley Lin and Swati Rana believe that the push for AAS is not "pure identity politics." Of course it isn't. Derrick Chu and Morna Ha would argue that it is only supposed to "reinforce the identity of Asian-Americans." Professor Hu-DeHart would probably agree.
