History talk

A really splendid article in the Wall Street Journal this morning by Richard Brookhiser, one of the best popular historians/biographers today. Apparently, a new federal program called "We the People" has been proposed to rectify the appalling lack of historical knowledge by American students. Now, leaving aside my cynical worries about how and when the historical establishment will warp the purposes of this program, I think Brookhiser lands some blows when he attacks social history, or as he calls it "social studies." Abandoning the traditional narrative history of great men and great events, history today is more a matter of unavoidable movements, trends, and shifts (and the self-loathing that comes with realizing you are "on the wrong side of history"). Brookhiser advocates returning to teaching history through, to use his catagories, stories, conflicts, personalities, and lessons. I am sympathetic.

Driving in the car yesterday, on my usual round of errands, I began thinking about my semester-end student evaluations. For now, I will avoid ranting about the very concept of student evaluations (let me get this straight, the students who say things like, "cool, we're watching a video in class" and "who is Nixon?" will be evaluating my class?...ok, a small rant) and instead focus on what they said. I am always blessed by very good student reactions to my classes; they do lots of work, are graded harshly, but appreciate that the class is interesting and not "dumbed down." Great. But it is the "what can the professor do to improve this class" that always gets me. The most consistent complaint is "the professor lectures too much." Most profs would probably see this repeatedly mentioned and think about changing their approach, making their classes more seminar-oriented. I absolutely refuse and dig in my heels.

Why? $20,000+ a year is an awful lot to pay for a conversation. If you want a conversation, go to a bookstore and start talking to people. It is free and appropriate. In a college or university, before any conversation takes place, students must have a knowledge of the facts, personalities, and events before any meaningful and useful conversation takes place. I am not interested in what students think about Joseph McCarthy if they do not understand what archival research in the past ten years has taught us about Soviet espionage, among other things. They want to tell me about "McCarthyism" and blacklisting and voice their opinions, but when questioned have nary a clue about Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, or the Rosenbergs. Conversation, debate, "dialogue" (an annoyingly common postmodern word) is a complete waste of time if students do not have at least a basic understanding of the facts, and when it is made a primary focus ahead of lectures it only reinforces ignorance. This is why lectures come first, conversation second, and I have no intention of changing this approach.

Hence, Dr. Curmudgeon.