In response to The Stanford Review’s recent petition to implement a two-quarter required course on Western Civilization instead of the current Thinking Matters requirement, I feel compelled to open up discussion on the importance of diversity in perspective.
Before we can talk about Stanford’s educational system, we should first define its goals. Following the University’s motto, “the wind of freedom blows,” our education should be an exploration of freedom of thought, freedom of growth and freedom of personal interpretation.
Accordingly, a University-wide requirement should encourage diverse perspectives. Progress is taking an existing idea and pushing it one step further. Progress is not an isolated occurrence but a conversation over time. In every field throughout history, diverse perspectives have enabled just this: progress. Android and iOS have very different approaches to the market – one focuses more on user freedom and customization, the other on ease of use and simplicity – and it is this constant competition that forces the mobile space to innovate so rapidly. Karl Marx and Adam Smith ignited debate throughout the Enlightenment and beyond on balancing economic prosperity with the individual’s natural rights. Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” coupled with modern business practices – two seemingly distinct yet complementary approaches to methodology and tactics – inform corporate strategy worldwide. Without diverse perspectives, no questioning occurs. No conversation occurs. No progress occurs.
Diverse – and often even opposing – perspectives do two things. Firstly, they highlight the shortcomings and advantages of each perspective, ensuring that people understand the full extent of the effects of the technologies they’re creating, the policies they’re proposing and the issues they’re supporting. Secondly, they encourage conversation around a topic, creating opportunities to learn from others and iterate on one’s own perspective. Put differently, diverse perspectives promote questioning, allow for a deeper understanding of how things came to be and accelerate progress. This is the wind of freedom: the opportunity to apply a spectrum of ideas to develop perspectives over time.
However, forcing the entire student body to learn about one single civilization on the basis of building “social awareness” through “a common set of values and norms” does just the opposite. Social awareness is not formed through a vacuum. The manifesto’s suggestion that Western civilization has developed in isolation, while other civilizations have developed by following Western principles, is historically inaccurate – an example of what can happen without enough diversity in perspective. The Review’s attribution of the GDP of an entire continent to Western civilization displays a misunderstanding of the important role of trade. The proposition that a University-wide requirement should be solely focused on Western civilization shows a concerning disregard for non-white influence on the philosophies, technologies and politics of the present day. A University-wide requirement ought to espouse the ideals of the University. It should not promote the white man’s burden or white supremacy, and it should not marginalize student populations.
Maybe what we need is a review of course content in current Thinking Matters or WAYS courses. Maybe we should throw out Thinking Matters and WAYS requirements in favor of courses that teach students to identify underlying assumptions within their own perspectives or in favor of topical courses that approach their topic from various lenses. I do not claim to know the best solution, but I do know that it must promote freedom of thought and diversity in perspective. However, what we do not need is an education that encourages homogeneity. We do not need the kind of education that lays the groundwork for stifling conversation and thought. We do not need the air to stand still – we need the wind of freedom to blow, and it is our responsibility to ensure we usher it in.
Contact Theodora Chu at theodora ‘at’ cs.stanford.edu