Francis Diebold: Cultural requirement is misguided

The recently proposed United States Cultural Analysis Requirement, currently under consideration by the School of Arts and Science's Committee for Undergraduate Education, is a misguided exercise in administrative meddling.

The key problem is more fundamental than the mere content of USCAR-type requirements (more on that later). Instead, it's their existence that enables groups to impose their views on others -- not by competing successfully for student interest but rather by lobbying successfully for faculty votes. Achieving the coveted status of "requirement" is immensely valuable to those involved, allowing them to skirt competition and force themselves on unwilling victims.

The study-by-force associated with USCAR-type requirements harms students, the University and society by misdirecting the allocation of one of our most valuable resources: aggressively keen and curious young minds. Faculty and students already interact routinely and vigorously in shaping undergraduate education. Our academic departments have a strong incentive to develop and offer innovative new courses because doing so brings them a variety of rewards. Similarly, our wonderfully talented students have a strong incentive to demand high-quality courses of maximal relevance to life in the new millennium, again because doing so brings them a variety of rewards.

For what more could we hope? In particular, is it likely that superior outcomes will be attained by forcing students to take courses that they would otherwise refuse (and implicitly forcing them not to take courses they would otherwise choose)? Clearly not.

Our fine young students are neither too immature nor too feeble to make up their own minds. Indeed, their choices are likely far more visionary than are monotonous requirements formulated by groups of lobbyists and implemented by middle-aged faculty/administrators (like me).

The principles sketched above suggest that all core requirements -- not just USCAR-type requirements -- are bad ideas. That is, stifling free choice is generally a bad idea, and requirements stifle free choice. If such complete reliance on free choice seems extreme -- perhaps unworkable in practice, albeit desirable in principle -- simply consider one of Penn's peer institutions: Brown University. Brown's elimination of all core requirements, for precisely my reasons, has met with resounding success. The "Brown model," as it is now called, does work in practice!

In the spirit of realism, however, let us admit that Penn is unlikely to embrace the Brown model anytime soon, whatever the reason. Consider then the content of core requirements, conditional on their existence, in which case the issue is whether USCAR should be admitted to the core.

Core requirements exist to teach crucial tools of thinking that are of value to all students, whatever their eventual specialty. Hence, core courses must be of such fundamental and universal importance that mandatory exposure is widely deemed desirable. Writing courses are a classic example, as good writing really is good thinking. USCAR, in contrast, is a poor example, not because USCAR courses are without merit, but rather because they fail to be "fundamental and universal."

Proponents will rush to argue that USCAR is fundamental, but in fact it is no more so than dozens of other fields correctly judged important yet correctly denied the status of core requirement (e.g., my own field of economics). Hence, departments should be free to offer USCAR courses, and students should be free to take them, but no one should be forced.

Finally, let us go even farther and assume that USCAR is indeed made a core requirement. Then, the conceptual purview of USCAR as envisioned thus far is much too narrow. If we must have an USCAR, its content should be very broadly defined, to better reflect both the spirit of core requirements and the great breadth of American culture. If, for example, issues of race, gender and sexuality are important in understanding American culture, let us not forget that so too are issues of, say, liberty, capitalism and democracy.

The bottom line: Penn, like all great universities, should strive to maintain a competitively determined curriculum, reducing politically determined "requirement sprawl" by avoiding USCAR-type meddling whenever possible and instead empowering and encouraging students to make their own informed decisions. There is no other route to a truly vibrant and diverse curriculum.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.