In his post “Harvard’s Supposed Crisis of Faith,” Sam Barr criticizes Lisa Miller’s recent Newsweek article about the study of religion at Harvard:
“Of course religion is important to study, …even or especially if you’re a nonbeliever. But I also said, or implied, that she was wasting her time with this article, because religion is not in nearly such dire straits at Harvard as she supposed.”
Given the increasing prominence of religion-based issues on the world stage, it is imperative that students should be religion-literate (or, as Bill Maher might say, religerate).
That much, I think, we can all agree on. So the question then becomes, Are students actually being exposed to religion in their classes? Sam claims that they are, taking us on a tour of his own course planner. Yes, religion managed to creep its way into the courseload of one cool-headed liberal atheist (congratulations?); however, this doesn’t preclude the rest of the student body from graduating sans exposure to religion. Simply because students “can get a decent dose of religion at Harvard” (emphasis obviously mine) doesn’t necessitate that they will. Sure, if you’re interested in the study of religion, Harvard offers a host of diverse courses to slake your intellectual thirst. But what about those students without that burning desire? Undoubtedly for some Harvard students, class discussions about religion are probable, if not inevitable. But the fact is, this experience is by no means one shared by the entire student body.
Isn’t it the point of standardized curricula to ensure that students like these don’t fall through the cracks? If religion is as important as we profess it to be, shouldn’t we implement a mechanism such that every student graduates having engaged in religious dialogue?
Dramatic technological and social changes have re-configured the global landscape, and Harvard University responded accordingly last year by introducing the General Education program. This curriculum purportedly meets the demands of a transformed society by exposing students to several basic fields of learning, readying them for life beyond the Harvard bubble. And yet, with the elimination of the original “Reason and Faith” category, a required study of religion is conspicuously lacking in the Gen Ed program. If there is universal consensus (well, nearly – Pinker and his apostles are a stubborn bunch) that Harvard students should encounter religion in a classroom setting, then it is high time that we devise a concrete measure to address these concerns.
The shortcomings of a curriculum that “doesn’t require you to learn about anything” can certainly be overcome. Look at how the crafters of the Gen Ed curriculum integrated history into graduation requirements, for example – students are required to take at least one course that engages with the past. Could we not also require one course to involve a substantial study of religion? If religion is as ubiquitous as Sam claims, then levying the extra measure would really only affect the small population of students who aren’t already partaking in enthralling class discussions about religion.
Ensuring religion’s place in the courseloads of Harvard students won’t take a miracle – far from it. We just need to sensibly re-evaluate the mission of the Gen Ed program and what we hope students will gain from their four years here at Harvard.
Photo credit: Flickr stream of AntyDiluvian.
