Let us presume—let us be uncontroversial—that it is valuable to study foreign cultures, that it is a worthwhile pursuit—for this is the premise that lies behind our Global Core requirement. This goal is ill-served by the present requirement, the wording of which is so vague—so infelicitous—that if it is read closely and taken literally, it reveals a veritable smorgasbord of flaws.
What areas are sufficiently “global” that their study will fulfill our requirement?
Let us turn to the bulletin in search of answers. There we are informed that “the Global Core requirement consists of courses that examine areas not the primary focus of Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization.” Where we wanted guidance, we find only a platitude—for almost every area in the entire world is not the “primary focus” of either Lit Hum or CC.
What does it even mean to be the “primary focus” of Lit Hum or CC? Should we consider Spain an area of primary focus? Or Russia, with only Dostoevsky on the syllabus? What of those areas that are not covered at all—Poland, Canada, Ireland? No one could argue that those areas are the “primary focus” of Lit Hum or CC—yet we all know that a course on Irish literature or on Polish cinema would never be approved. But why? On what grounds, considering the text of the requirement, could such courses be disqualified?
If we look at the list of approved courses, we will only find a few areas represented—East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and selected African and South Asian countries. Almost no other areas are represented on our list. And how have they arrived at this list? What secret criteria—for their criteria are certainly not evident from the text of the requirement—have they used to select these areas? One must see in this list an implicit “area hierarchy”; their premise, evidently, is not—as I mistakenly stated above—that it is valuable to study foreign cultures, but rather that it is valuable to study these specific foreign cultures. Why these ones? The bulletin gives us no clue. Perhaps they are concerned that to reveal explicitly this hierarchy—as was the case in the Major Cultures requirement—would smack of illogicality. But it is no less illogical for being hidden—it is merely an illogicality forced underground. There is nothing in the text of the requirement that suggests such a hierarchy—which indisputably exists.
I must pass over the other flaws and problems in the text of the requirement, although I would love to know what extent of space or duration of time qualifies as “expansive” enough. The list of approved courses provides no clear guidelines—it contains a course on Gandhi’s India, a course on the U.S./Mexico border, and a course on popular music of the Caribbean, to name a few—courses which I would consider neither temporally nor spatially expansive.
Instead, let us see how virtually any course that does not concern the few areas that can be legitimately considered the primary focus of Lit Hum or CC could fit this requirement.
Take a random course from the catalog and test it against the requirement—a course which we all silently know would never be put on the approved list, because we all implicitly acknowledge the existence of the area hierarchy. Let us consider, for example, “The Russian Short Story.” It passes the first test—Russia is certainly not the primary focus of Lit Hum or CC. The course is “broadly introductory”—it is a “survey of the Russian short story tradition”—and since it covers 200 years of Russian literature and involves the world’s largest country, no doubt it is temporally and spatially expansive enough. It is “organized around a set of primary texts” and it “focuses on a specific culture.” There is no reason, from the text of the requirement itself, why this course should not be on the list of approved courses. Try this experiment yourself—many courses lend themselves easily to the requirement.
I am not objecting to the Global Core because I am Eurocentric, or indeed, for any political reason. I think foreign cultures ought to be studied. I am objecting to this requirement on the grounds that it is illogical, and that it is a monument to political correctness—an outdated view of the world as “us” and “them,” secretly enshrined in a list of approved courses that could not be independently derived from the text of the requirement itself. If the University wants us to take a course on these specific areas, then that desire should be made explicit—it should not be cloaked in the guise of a “Global Core” requirement. No one is deceived.
The author is a Columbia College sophomore.