Women's Studies

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Craig Lerner's ignorant and offensive comparison (March 16) of Gay and Lesbian Studies to "Zen Basketweaving" begins an editorial which exhibits the same close-minded and faulty thought he criticizes.

Lerner's objections focus on the central course of the Women's Studies concentration, "Classics of Feminist Theory." The only works classic to Lerner are those written by Western men. If by classical what Lerner means is those works traditionally studied by white men in Europe and in the United States, he is right. Until recently, texts written by women have not been studied in those communities, nor has the work of the majority of the world's population. It is a significant step that universities in the United States are beginning to recognize the limits of their traditional range of disciplines. Lerner is "disappointed" that the designers of Women's Studies 10 draw on "such a limited group of thinkers and books." We hope that many who read his article are disappointed by his limited conception of a liberal education and legitimate thought.

Lerner fails to support the fundamental premise of his argument: that Women's Studies is not a legitimate discipline. Instead, he limits himself to arguing that feminist texts are not "classics." And by his definitions, Lerner deprives Harvard of many legitimate disciplines which constitue the Universityh's intellectual wealth.

It would be interesting to learn what illustirous and classical field of study Lerner chose that could teach it students to produce such "thought."