Yeah, I was going to make a similar comment. I would say 15 years ago it was in full swing. EDIT: That is, unless one perceives the desire to stop marginalizing different cultural/gender perspectives in itself as being inherently hostile to the canon.
Fulminate much? Or, more to the point, assert things without basis much? Let's take a look at the basic English lit courses from the schools you've mentioned: Harvard College English Dept (looks like a buttload of DWM to me). Columbia College's Core Curriculum. This takes some looking, but you'll eventually find descriptions like this one, where DWM abound: And here's the Berkeley English Dept's Spring 2008 offerings. Once again, a completely equitable representation of DWM.
Know statistics much? Harvard and Berkeley have some courses which actually refer to writers who mark over a 1,000 years of the evolution of the English language. Or to investigators who mark over 2,500 years of scientific enquiry. Or to men, and some women, who played a crucial practical or intellectual role in the 700 year rise and decline of the West. Thus you conclude that there is no basis for the judgement that in America PC rules over many major universities? Wow, you are good. If you are serious, then it would take many long discussions over beer [or ginger suffused bitteroot tea, if you're that type] to get you to start pondering over the imponderables of sampling [yeah, there's mucho bias in your Bunga, Diri], or over the distinction between Doc Wanker's "destruction" and the reality of "deconstruction" [hint: there is a distinction-ya know-between annihilation and being dismantled] . Never mind over the remarkable fact that a course schedule which mentions "Author X" informs us not at all as to whether the course actually seeks to understand that author's work, to grasp its aims and how the aims were striven for, to gain insight into how well done so; as opposed to simply binding the work into a scheme whereby the author's gender, or race, or nationality, or economic status, or religious affiliation, or political bent, etc.... is assumed to be what really tells us what the author's work is all about. If you are serious, you will consider that with "we have come to bury Caesar, not praise him" Caesar is mentioned, sure, but only for the purposes of whacking him across the noggin and see if he can swim the River Charles in cement shoes. What? The vision of a Caesar being Rasputined in the waters off of the Esplanade distracts you? Ok, let's it keep it boringly trite. An economics class may list Adam Smith or Ricardo as central players, but that does not preclude the nice Marxist professor from making the point of the course a three month exercise in reaming those dastard unsocialists. A History of Science class may be titled "Boyle's Pump and the Origins of Gas Laws", but that does not prevent the substance of the course being a sustained attack on "Men's Science" , or "Privileged Science", or an attempt to claim that Science is nothing but politics and power interests. Has it occurred to you, then, that a course entitled "Shakespeare and the Elizabethans" does not assure us that Shakespeare and the Elizabethans are anything more than useful literary pegs upon which to frame the Professor's theoretical, even ideological, imperatives? From my experiences at universities in the 90s and early 00's, and those of many friends, and those of many nonfriends, the bulletin description of a course [outside of the sciences] gave no warning at all as to what was actually to occur in class. What did give warning was listening to the Profs chitchat at socials and let the truth serum that is gude rede wine sparkle them into revealing the character of their prejudices. Then one knew what was "the correct concept" in their classes. Yes, there were naifs who bought the admission's garbage as to the University being a place for the serious and free pursuit of knowledge, wherever it might lead. Most were disabused of that notion the day they argued for something counter "the correct concept". Some, like Don Quixote, refused unto academic death to accept the sordid reality of the windmills. [They are now downing pingas in a bar in Bali, and desperately hoping the bearded chap next to them is wearing a heavy coat only because tropical climes leaves him chilled]. A very few were by nature Sancho Panzas, and knew before the dice were rolled that the game was a con. If you are not serious, that is if you have no intent or will to probe this issue to the depths and to seek solid ground and true conclusions, then back to your cave. [if you are unhappy with words such as "true", that is a mighty powerful indication you are not serious....unless you consider it true that one can be serious about things in a world where there are no true things ] Oh, yes, Columbia. It yet has the vestiges of a "Great Books" program, much attenuated from its ancient heyday-when it rivalled that of Chicago- but still not eradicated. That is your claim to non PCness at Columbia? Oy. I wonder just how much you know about universities, particularly the "elite" ones, in this country. I have held back, believe it or not, from the proper scouring of your apparent claim that "Because schedules list courses which refer to DWMs [non PC ones], and the numbers which do so are noticeable, then there exists "Completely Equitable Representation" [what, equal parts Plato and Rigoberta Menchu? Equal parts Bush and Castro? Equal parts Mendel and Lysenko? ]. This cheap rotgut South African "Burgundy" I've been swilling for the last half hour has apparently made a milquetoast of me. So today you walk out on human feet. But if you insist on trying out your sort of pilf as an "argument", why not have a conversation with a certain Mr. Summers, Villain Extraordinaire, Violater of PC Norms, Purveyor of Womanly Unmentionables, Fascist, BushHitler Thug....[in a heavy, slow but building to emphasis, Golemic voice]...NeeoooCON? After all, until a year or so ago he was President of that Harvard whose schedule you sought to wield as El Baton del Muerte. Oh, yes, he can also tell you about what happened when he tried to give speeches at Columbia and Berkeley. As for me, more "Burgundy" swill and an embrace of Darkness Visible. G'nite, Mate.
In other words, you recognize your claim that they are no longer taught is indefensible in the face of the evidence presented and instead you now argue that the likes of Shakespeare should never have been required to rub shoulders with the likes of Maya Angelou. As for Summers, his (unjustified, in my opinion) downfall at Harvard is in no way evidence supporting your argument--barely discernible for all the purple extravagance and self-love with which you cloak it--that the Great Books canon is somehow diminished by teaching it in the broader context of world literature.
I actually disagree with you on Summers. I recall a computer scientist at Harvard explaining the real cause of his downfall. He said it wasn't PC run amok so much as it was Summers' habit of thinking and speaking in soundbytes. Whereas, said the aforementioned computer scientist whose name I can't recall and whose discipline I might even have wrong, being president at Harvard required a gravitas that Summers lacked. So from this viewpoint, it wasn't so much his opinions on the intellectual capacities of women so much as his inability frame the comment in a way that reflected the complexity and the history of the debate. Now, if you excuse me, I have to go revise my syllabus for next spring in order to put some women and people of color on it so that I may be dastardly in my drive to undermine liberty through my use of academic freedom.
If one person's experience counts for anything, I majored in English at Berekeley during the mid-90's. Really, if there were ever a time or place which represented the apex of the "PC movement" (or more accurately opposition to the entrenched literary canon), Berkeley in the 90's would be it. As far as I recall, the DWM's of the canon were well represented and pretty much revered in almost every course I took. The prerequisites for the English major included 3 courses on English literature from Chaucer through twenieth century, as well as a separate course exclusively on Shakespeare. I don't recall every piece of literature we were assigned, but the only works by female or non-white authors I remember reading were Wuthering Heights, a slave narrative, and Black Boy (or Native Son? I can't even remember). I'm sure there were a few more, but the overwhelming majority of course content was devoted to those treasured DWM's. The idea that they were read and discussed only to be bashed for their male, European perspective is entirely unfounded. Granted, I'm talking about the core courses, not, say, seminars devoted to postcolonial literature or some such.
Lost, in the 80s there was a lot similar garbage to what you are claiming. One particular claim got widespread coverage, which sounds a lot like what you are babbling about. One of the so-called defenders of Western Civ ad libbed "Did you know that Alice Walker is taught more often than Shakespeare these days?" This soundbite then got picked up by outsiders like you and found its way into editorials across the country, and then into Congressional speeches, IIR. Well, finally somebody decided to go ahead and check it out. She gathered the book order lists from dozens of the top English departments, and catalogued how many times Shakespeare and Alice Walker were being ordered. I think it was around 25:1 in favor of the DWM.
I'm only going on what I've seen from the outside. I thought his comments about sex and research were pretty dumb, but not a sufficient basis for getting run out of Dodge, especially since he was calling for research rather than making an evaluative statement. Regarding that syllabus, make sure you boldface the part where you remind students that self-reflexivity is required for the participation in discussion, which might correctively advantage those students with specific ethnic, gendered, or experiential backgrounds. (I know I don't need a winkie man for you, Wankler, but for others who might be watching: )
This comes to mind. (Please note that it's not safe for work.) Otherwise, your guess is as good as mine. It's not a phrase I've heard used beyond my attempt at PoMo-ese, above.
i didn't check your link. my heart is in pretty good shape. i spend about 100 minutes per week on one of these. i just stand on it.
That's probably the best bet. We wouldn't want to lose all those interesting one line posts you've been tossing around like spitballs.
I actually thought of this book as soon as you I read your question. This image is work-safe. Not sure about the rest of the site. You can read about it here. http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Memo...9041226?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194913437&sr=1-1 I suspect that bungadiri's theoretical intervention, appealing as it does to the dominant visual concretization of the abstract often enacted to mask conservative ideological tendencies, is hotter.
That's a big 10-4, good buddy. Actually, it's the "booty" thread that's constantly on the front page of the Free for All forum, right here on BS, with which I am acquainted because it occasionally has some good articles in it.