The Philosophy of the Curriculum-The Need for General ...

General Education and the University CrisisWrn. Theodore deBarycluding] contact with history and the nature of other cultures" (p. 13);and "broad learning experiences-the provision of opportunities tosurvey the cultural heritage of mankind, to understand man andsocietyM (p. 65).I do not wish to commit the common sin of book reviewers whobelabor authors for what they have left unsaid rather than what theyhave actually written. I simply point to the discrepancy between thehigh priority assigned to general education and their comparativesilence in regard to its nature, content, and practice. Nor is this lackmade up in any of the numerous other reports issued by the CarnegieCommission. Here then is a major need, explicitly acknowledged, forwhich an up-to-date answer is conspicuously missing.The term "general education" conveys the impression of somethingthat is inherently diffuse, and when one speaks of it in the samecontext as "humanities," "liberal education," and even "continuingeducation" (with its connotations of adult education, night school andall that), one risks unlimited confusion, if not the charge of beinghopelessly vague and woolly.LIBERAL EDUCATION, GENERAL EDUCATION, AND CAREERTRAINING'General education-though to me, as to the Carnegie Commission, avital part of liberal education-is not the whole of it. Liberal education,most people would agree, aims to liberate the powers of the individualby disciplining them; and that discipline, in turn, immediatelyrelates the individual to the values of his or her culture and to certainsocial necessities. I do not, then, have any difficulty in accepting evenprofessional training or vocational education as contributing to thoseaims. The educated man or woman, the member of society, even thepurported citizen of the world, needs this everyday discipline if he orshe is to be liberated from a sense of total dependence on others. Hemust have something of his own that he can contribute to the work ofthe world, and if he learns to do it well, that will be part of his liberaleducation. It is not to be scorned as "mere vocationalism."For this reason I can appreciate the concerns that have given riseto the current drive for "career education" among public policymakersand funding agencies. The US. commissioner of education, Dr. SidneyMarland, is not mistaken in believing that most Americans, old oryoung, attach great importance to career preparation as an educationalobjective, and in finding much of our educational system defectivein meeting this goal.2 I recognize too that in seeking to rectify thisdefect Dr. Marland has not meant to advance career training at the ex-pense of the liberal arts, nor has he set vocationalism in opposition tothe humanities. For him, "career education" represents a combining of"career training" and "liberal education."Yet it disturbs me that in combining these two terms the word "liberal"has been displaced in favor of "career." I do not suggest thatcombining them to produce "liberal training" is a practicable alternative,but one can nevertheless see that a shift in emphasis is takingplace and that liberal education comes out second best-if it is in therunning at all. Somehow the impression is conveyed that one can havethe fullness of education without paying the whole price. This impressionis strengthened by two related factors: the program's close identificationwith proposals to shorten the time spent in college, and thecomparative lack of any discussion as to how the liberal arts or humanitiesare to be fortified to meet this all-out competition for the student'sattention over such a short length of time.One need not question the sincerity of the intention in order todemonstrate how empty is the gesture being made to liberal education.It can no longer be assumed, as both Dr. Marland and the CarnegieCommission seem to have done, that the basic elements of humanisticeducation are there for the taking or that general education issomething for which one only needs to make a place. After years ofneglect, the problem for general education is not how to make allowancefor it but how to make active provision for it.Paying tribute to humanistic education is not the same thing asworking at it, and uttering the usual pieties will do little to restore humanisticvalues if they have been eroding away while everyone tookthem for granted. Without a more conscious effort being made in generaleducation, the vocational stress in Dr. Marland's program and thepressures of the speedup will leave the humanities in an even weakerand more disadvantaged position. Thus, rather than allowing "liberaleducation" to be subsumed under career education in a sterile and lifelessform, I would urge restoring it to full primacy. This can only bedone through the active development of general education as a vitalcomplement to career training, and by recognizing both of these asessential to a liberal education that is worthy of the name and not justwindow dressing for vocationalism.If this seems to be mere quibbling over terms, other factors in ourcurrent situation make it more than a terminological issue. Besides thecrisis of values and the breakdown of language, there is today the inescapablepolitical involvement. Quite apart from the threat of overtpol' icization, heavy dependence on public funding exposes us to thevicissitudes of political fortune and bureaucratic rationalization in federaland state governments. As just one example, I would cite the