A New General Studies

. Ethnic Studies might not be what students really want.

Be careful what you protest for--you just might get it.

Ethnic studies sounds good. It sounds politically correct, interesting, and legitimately academic. It also sounds very, very broad. Exactly a month ago tomorrow, the Minority Students Alliance (MSA) demonstrated in favor of "E.S." outside a lecture given by Professor of Government Michael J. Sandel. Did the MSA and its associated organizations really contemplate how an E. S. department might be formed? The results could take more than a few protesting students by surprise.

First, we must define ethnic studies. Belying its actual meaning, the word "ethnic" has come to connote the experience of minorities and immigrants in this country.Thus, course in several existing departments--East Asian Studies, Sanskrit and Indian Studies, etc.--do not qualify as "ethnic." In fact, the only departments that can call itself truly ethnic in this sense is Afro-American Studies. "Afro-Am," as it has come to be known, deals primarily with the history, sociology, and literature of Blacks in the United States.

In the Course of Instruction book, about thirty course specifically in Afro-American studies are listed. They are followed by as many, if not more, courses in other departments that deal peripherally but not exclusively with Afro-American issues. These courses could easily be called E.S. under the above rubric. In fact, the whole Department of Afro-American Studies could be known as E.S. with a definite focus on Afro-Americans.

Given that Afro-Am falls under the wide umbrella of E.S., the formation of a true E.S. department could only have one outcome: Afro-Am would be completely merged into it. Of course, the University would have to create some new course and hire some new professors to balance the E.S. curriculum with other minorities, but all of them would be essentially equal in the vast expanse of E.S. With only six professors on the Faculty of Arts and Sciences actually appointed in Afro-Am (along with a slew of visiting lecturers), the University could represent every minority proportionately with the U.S. population and still have an E.S. department smaller than the Department of Government or Economics.

How exactly would the E.S. major work? Well, one couldn't simply take a lot of courses that focused on Afro-Americans--that wouldn't' be a complete ethnic experience. No, each E.S. concentrator would have to take courses on Mexican-Americans, other Hispanic Americans, Chinese-Americans, Korean-Americans, Indian-Americans and other Asian Americans as well, to say nothing of the huge number of European-Americans who have not yet been mentioned. Yes, Western-, Northern-,Central-,Eastern-, and Southern-European-Americans have just as legitimate a claim to the E.S. banner as anyone else. Where are the courses on Poles in Chicago, Scandinavians in the Dakotas, and Italians in New York?

Certainly, the ideas offered above do not paint a pretty picture. But an E.S. department must be fair to all ethnicities, given its name. Perhaps a more reasonable alternative can be found. The MSA has other, admirable goals, such as the hiring of more minority faculty members, hopefully in all disciplines. And someone has to take Kenan Professor of Government Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. '53 down a peg now and then. But E.S., though it has the ring of a good idea, could in reality be a quagmire that would only spawn more controversy.

Daniel Altman's column appears on alternate Mondays